sign in sign up
<<
Home , Achagua people, ALTO (interbank network), Ancash Quechua, Andoque people, Arab Colombians, Araucanian languages

THE OF THE

The Andean and Pacific regions of are home to a remark- able variety of languages and families, with a range of typologi- cal differences. This linguistic diversity results from a complex historical background, comprising periods of greater communication between dif- ferent peoples and languages, and periods of fragmentation and individual development. The Languages of the Andes is the first book in English to document in a single volume the indigenous languages spoken and for- merly spoken in this linguistically rich region, as well as in adjacent areas. Grouping the languages into different cultural spheres, it describes their characteristics in terms of language typology, language contact, and the social perspectives of present-day languages. The authors provide both historical and contemporary information, and illustrate the languages with detailed grammatical sketches. Written in a clear and accessible style, this book will be a valuable source for students and scholars of and anthropology alike.

 . .  is Professor of Amerindian Languages and Cul- tures at . He has travelled widely in South America and has conducted fieldwork in on different varieties of Quechua and minor languages of the area. He has also worked on the historical- comparative reconstruction of South American languages, and since 1991 has been involved in international activities addressing the issue of lan- guage endangerment. His previously published books include Tarma Quechua (1977) and Het Boek van Huarochir´ı (1988).

 .  is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Nijmegen. He has travelled widely in the and the Andes, and was previously Professor of Sociolinguistics and Creole Studies at the Uni- versity of Amsterdam and Professor of Linguistics and American Studies at Leiden University. He is co-editor of the Cambridge jour- nal Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, and his previously published books include Bilingual Speech: a Typology of Code-mixing (Cambridge, 2000), and One Speaker, Two Languages (co-edited with Lesley Milroy, Cambridge, 1995). CAMBRIDGE LANGUAGE SURVEYS

General editors P. Austin (University of Melbourne) J. Bresnan (Stanford University) B. Comrie (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig) W. Dressler (University of Vienna) C. Ewen (University of Leiden) R. Lass (University of Cape Town) D. Lightfoot (University of Maryland) I. (University of Cambridge) S. Romaine (University of Oxford) N. V. Smith (University College London)

This series offers general accounts of the major language families of the world, with volumes organised either on a purely genetic basis or on a geographical basis, whichever yields the most convenient and intelligible grouping in each case. Each volume compares and contrasts the typological features of the languages it deals with. It also treats the relevant genetic re- lationships, historical development and sociolinguistic issues arising from their role and use in the world today. The books are intended for linguists from undergraduate level upwards, but no special knowledge of the lan- guages under consideration is assumed. Volumessuch as those on Australia and the are also of wider relevance, as the future of the lan- guages and their speakers raises important social and political issues.

Volumes already published include Chinese Jerry Norman The languages of Masayoshi Shibatani and Creoles (volume I: Theory and structure; volume II: Reference survey) John A. Holm The Indo-Aryan languages Colin Masica The Celtic languages edited by Donald MacAulay The Rebecca Posner The edited by R. M. W Dixon and Alexandra . Aikhenvald The languages of Native North America Marianne Mithun The Ho-Him Sohn Australian languages R. M. W. Dixon The Bhadriraju Krishnamurti THE LANGUAGES OF THE ANDES

WILLEM F. H. ADELAAR with the collaboration of PIETER C. MUYSKEN cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, , São Paulo

Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521362757

© Willem F. H. Adelaar and Pieter C. Muysken 2004

This publication is in copyright. to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published in print format 2004 isbn-13 978-0-511-21587-2 eBook (NetLibrary) isbn-10 0-511-21587-8 eBook (NetLibrary) isbn-13 978-0-521-36275-7 hardback isbn-10 0-521-36275-x hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. CONTENTS

List of tables page x List of maps xiv Preface xv Orthographic conventions xvi List of abbreviations xx

1 Introduction 1 1.1 The languages of the Andes4 1.2 Physical description6 1.3 Brief history of the region7 1.4 A brief overview of the different Andean countries 10 1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages 15 1.5.1 The colonial period 15 1.5.2 The nineteenth century 18 1.5.3 Contemporary Andean linguistics 19 1.6 Sources for the study of the languages of the Andes 20 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 22 1.7.1 History of classificatory efforts 23 1.7.2 Quechuan and Aymaran, Quechumaran 34 1.7.3 Other proposals for individual language families 36 1.7.4 The Greenberg (1987) proposal 41

2 The Chibcha Sphere 46 2.1 The language groups and their distribution 50 2.2 Research on the native languages of 54 2.3 Chocoan 56 2.4 Yurumangu´ı60 2.5 Cuna 61 2.6 The languages of the Sierra Nevada de 66 vi Contents

2.7 Chimila 75 2.8 Bar´ı80 2.9 The language 81 2.9.1 Sources 82 2.9.2 83 2.9.3 89 2.9.4 Lexicon 103 2.9.5 A Muisca text 106 2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) 109 2.11 Yukpa and Magdalena valley Cariban 112 2.12 The of the Caribbean coast 115 2.13 Timote–Cuica 124 2.14 Jirajaran 129 2.15 P´aez (Nasa Yuwe) 130 2.16 Andaqu´ı and the languages of the Upper Magdalena valley 138 2.17 Barbacoan languages 141 2.18 Kams´a 151 2.19 Esmeralde˜no 155 2.20 Overview of the languages of the eastern Colombian lowlands 161

3 The Inca Sphere 165 3.1 The languages and their distribution 168 3.2 The Quechuan 179 3.2.1 The Quechua homeland 180 3.2.2 Historical overview of the colonial period 182 3.2.3 situation 183 3.2.4 Quechua studies 191 3.2.5 Phonology 194 3.2.6 Grammar 207 3.2.7 Characteristics of the Quechua lexicon 233 3.2.8 A sketch of an Ecuadorian Quechua dialect (Salasaca) 237 3.2.9 A sketch of a Peruvian Quechua dialect (Pacaraos) 242 3.2.10 A Cuzco Quechua text fragment 249 3.2.11 Literary production in Quechua 254 3.2.12 Social factors influencing the future of Quechua 256 3.3 The Aymaran language family 259 3.3.1 Past and present distribution 260 3.3.2 Homeland and expansion 263 3.3.3 Internal variation in the Aymaran language family 264 Contents vii

3.3.4 Salient features of the Aymaran language family 267 3.3.5 Aymara phonology 270 3.3.6 Aymara grammar 274 3.3.7 Aymara lexicon 293 3.3.8 Literary production in Aymara 296 3.3.9 Aymara sample text 296 3.3.10 The Jaqaru language 301 3.3.11 Jaqaru sample text 315 3.4 The Mochica language 319 3.4.1 The sounds of Mochica 321 3.4.2 Mochica grammar 328 3.4.3 Mochica sample texts 344 3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 350 3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 362 3.7 The Atacame˜no language 375 3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´e language 385 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages of the Inca Sphere 391 3.9.1 392 3.9.2 Northern Peru 397 3.9.3 Northwestern 407

4 The languages of the eastern slopes 411 4.1 The Pano– 418 4.2 The Arawakan languages 422 4.2.1 Yanesha phonology 424 4.2.2 The principal grammatical features of Yanesha 425 4.2.3 Complex sentences in Yanesha 430 4.3 Tupi–Guaran´ı 430 4.4 The Jivaroan languages 432 4.4.1 phonology 433 4.4.2 The principal grammatical features of Shuar 435 4.4.3 Complex sentences in Shuar 445 4.5 Cahuapana 447 4.6 Bora–Huitoto 449 4.7 The Zaparoan languages 451 4.8 The 453 4.9 Small families and supposed language isolates in Ecuador 454 4.10 Small families and supposed language isolates in Peru 456 4.11 Chol´on 460 viii Contents

4.11.1 The Chol´on lexicon and relationship with Hibito 461 4.11.2 Gender-determined language use 462 4.11.3 Chol´on phonology 463 4.11.4 The principal grammatical features of Chol´on 463 4.11.5 The basic of Chol´on 475 4.12 Small families and supposed language isolates in 475 4.13 Chiquitano 477 4.13.1 Gender-determined language use in Chiquitano 478 4.13.2 Chiquitano phonology 479 4.13.3 The principal grammatical features of Chiquitano 480 4.13.4 Chiquitano word order 488 4.14 The languages of the Chaco region: Guaicuruan, Matacoan, Zamucoan and Lengua–Mascoy 488 4.15 Quechua influences on eastern slopes languages 499

5 The Araucanian Sphere 502 5.1 Araucanian or 508 5.1.1 Mapuche studies 510 5.1.2 The sounds of Mapuche 512 5.1.3 Grammar 517 5.1.4 Lexicon 537 5.1.5 Mapuche sample text 539 5.2 The Allentiac language 544

6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 550 6.1 The languages and their distribution 552 6.2 Ethnohistory 555 6.3 Problems in classification 556 6.4 Linguistic features 558 6.4.1 The Chonan languages 558 6.4.2 Chono and Kawesqar 564 6.4.3 Yahgan 567 6.4.4 Areal-typological features of the Fuegian languages 578 6.5 Oral literature 580 6.6 Language contact 580 6.7 A Tehuelche text 582

7 The Spanish presence 585 7.1 Characteristics of 585 Contents ix

7.1.1 Demography and the Iberian dialectal origins 586 7.1.2 Linguistic features 587 7.2 Amerindian substratum influence 589 7.3 Language mixture and pidginisation in the Andes and the Amazon basin 602 7.4 African influences 604 7.5 and policy with respect to the Amerindian languages and to bilingual education 605 7.6 Andean languages in the modern world 608

Appendix: Inventory of languages and language families of the Andean region 610 References 625 Author index 681 Index of languages and ethnic groups 690 Subject index 703 TABLES

1.1 Percentage of Indian population in the different Andean countries page 11 1.2 Early of Andean languages 16 1.3 Greenberg’s (1956) classification of the languages of the Andes 28 1.4 The four networks proposed by Swadesh (1959, 1962) 29 1.5 The language families relevant to the Andes listed in Loukotka (1968) 31 1.6 Groupings suggested by Su´arez (1974) of language families and isolates included in Loukotka (1968) 32 1.7 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Kaufman (1990) with their correlates in Loukotka (1968) 33 1.8 Greenberg’s (1987) classification of the languages of the Andes 44 2.1 Overview of the inventories of Chocoan languages and 58 2.2 Cuna consonant inventory 63 2.3 Overview of the consonant inventories of the Arhuacan languages 68 2.4 modifiers in Chimila 77 2.5 Personal reference markers for subject and in Chimila 78 2.6 Inventory of Muisca consonant 88 2.7 Inventory of Muisca phonemes 88 2.8 Personal reference in Muisca 97 2.9 Inventory of Muisca and case combinations 100 2.10 Uw Cuwa (Tunebo) consonant inventory 110 2.11 Proto-Yukpa 113 2.12 Guajiro consonant inventory 117 2.13 Personal prefixes and in Guajiro 120 List of tables xi

2.14 Caldono P´aez obstruents 131 2.15 Caldono P´aez continuants 132 2.16 Caldono P´aez 132 2.17 Person markers in Nasa Yuwe (P´aez) 135 2.18 consonant inventory 143 2.19 Awa Pit (Cuaiquer) consonant inventory 144 2.20 Tsafiki (Colorado) consonant inventory 144 2.21 Chapalaachi (Cayapa) consonant inventory 145 2.22 Awa Pit pronouns 148 2.23 Chapalaachi pronouns 148 2.24 Kams´a consonant phonemes 152 2.25 Kams´a personal reference markers 153 3.1 Proto-Quechua consonants 196 3.2 Proto-Quechua vowels 196 3.3 The Quechua four-person system 211 3.4 Subject conjugation in Quechua 219 3.5 Valency-changing suffixes in Quechua 229 3.6 Jaqaru personal reference markers 269 3.7 Aymara consonant inventory 271 3.8 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the unmarked tense 282 3.9 Subject and subject–object endings for the in La Paz and Sitajara Aymara 284 3.10 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the 285 3.11 Subject and subject–object endings for the present and past potential mood in La Paz Aymara 286 3.12 Nominalising affixes in Aymara 288 3.13 Jaqaru consonant inventory 302 3.14 Subject and subject–object endings of the unmarked tense in Jaqaru 307 3.15 Subject and subject–object endings of the future tense in Jaqaru 308 3.16 Mochica vowels as represented in Carrera Daza (1644) and Middendorf (1892) 324 3.17 Sibilants in seventeenth-century Mochica 326 3.18 Overview of the consonant symbols in the Mochica grammars of Carrera Daza (1644) and Middendorf (1892) 329 3.19 Personal reference in Mochica 331 xii List of tables

3.20 Mochica preterit and future tenses 337 3.21 Numerals 1 to 10 in Mochica 343 3.22 Puquina personal and possessive pronouns 353 3.23 Possessed in Callahuaya 359 3.24 Personal and possessive pronouns in Callahuaya 360 3.25 Callahuaya consonant inventory 361 3.26 Chipaya consonant inventory 364 3.27 Unmarked in Chipaya 371 3.28 Tentative inventory of Atacame˜no sounds 380 3.29 Possessive nominal paradigm in Atacame˜no 381 3.30 Atacame˜no personal and possessive pronouns 382 3.31 Verbal past-tense paradigm in Atacame˜no 383 3.32 Lule personal endings for unmarked tense and nominal possession 389 3.33 Lule future and imperative verbal paradigms 389 4.1 The relationship between the Arawakan languages of the pre-Andean area 423 4.2 Yanesha (Amuesha) inventory 424 4.3 The relationship among the pre-Andean members of the Tupi–Guaran´ı language family 431 4.4 Shuar phoneme inventory 434 4.5 The Shuar -reference system illustrated with the ant- ‘to hear’ 446 4.6 Phoneme inventory of Bora 450 4.7 Phoneme inventory of Huao 454 4.8 The sound inventory of Chol´on 464 4.9 Chiquitano phoneme inventory 480 4.10 Phoneme inventory of Toba 489 4.11 Phoneme inventory of Bolivian (Noctenes) Mataco 493 4.12 Reconstructed consonant system of Proto-Matacoan 495 4.13 Phoneme inventory of Ayoreo 496 5.1 Mapuche consonant inventory 517 5.2 Personal and possessive pronouns in Mapuche 519 5.3 Mapuche subject endings 523 5.4 Unmarked verbal paradigm in Allentiac 546 5.5 verbal paradigm in Allentiac 547 6.1 The relation between putative Chono words identified by Bausani (1975) and their possible equivalents in the Alacalufan materials of Skottsberg (1913) and Clairis (1987) 553 List of tables xiii

6.2 Historical demographic data for the canoe nomads 555 6.3 Historical demographic data for the hunter nomads 555 6.4 Phoneme inventory of Selknam 559 6.5 Phoneme inventory of G¨un¨una Yajich 562 6.6 Phoneme inventory of Tehuelche 563 6.7 Tentative sound inventory of Chono 565 6.8 Phonemes of Kawesqar 566 6.9 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Golbert de Goodbar 1977 and Poblete and Salas 1999) 568 6.10 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Adam 1885) 569 6.11 Person inflection in Yahgan 575 6.12 Phonological features of the Fuegian languages 579 6.13 Morphological features of the Fuegian languages 579 6.14 Constituent order features of the Fuegian languages 579 7.1 Major isoglosses in the Andean areas of Latin American Spanish 588 7.2 Types of speakers of Spanish that may show influence from Quechua 590 7.3 Sprachbund phenomena in the pronunciation of liquids and vibrants in different varieties of Quechua and Spanish in Ecuador 591 7.4 Features claimed to be due to Quechua in different varieties of Spanish 593 MAPS

Map 1 The Chibcha Sphere: overview of ethnolinguistic groups attested in premodern sources page 47 Map 2 The Chibcha Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the mid twentieth century 51 Map 3 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the sixteenth century 166 Map 4 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the mid twentieth century 169 Map 5 Approximate distribution of Quechua dialects in Peru and adjacent areas 184 Map 6 Distribution of Aymaran and Uru–Chipaya languages 260 Map 7 Eastern lowland languages: Ecuador and northern Peru 412 Map 8 Eastern lowland languages: southern Peru 413 Map 9 Eastern lowland languages: Bolivia 414 Map 10 Eastern lowland languages: the Chaco area 415 Map 11 The Araucanian Sphere: approximate distribution of languages at the time of the Spanish conquest (sixteenth century) 503 Map 12 The Araucanian Sphere: twentieth-century distribution of indigenous languages 504 Map 13 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 551 PREFACE

This book took much longer to write than originally intended, particularly because very little was known about some of the regions to be covered, while much new material has become available these last few years. We hope this survey will in its turn inspire new research in the years to come. We wish to thank first of all Bernard Comrie for his precise and encouraging comments on earlier chapter drafts. We are very grateful to Ana Fern´andez, Timothy Curnow, Knut Olawsky and Nicholas Ostler for reading and commenting on specific chapters of the book. A special word of thanks goes to Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino for providing us with data from his ongoing research on the , and to for permitting us to use his unpublished work on Puquina. Many colleagues and friends have contributed over the years with valuable advice and commentary, by providing us with newly published or little-known publications, or by calling our attention to new materials and research results. Their generosity is duly remembered, although space does not allow us to mention each of them individually. Our gratitude extends in particular to those academic institutions that have provided the environment and the facilities necessary for an undertaking such as the present one: the Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) in Wassenaar, the Netherlands, the Research Centre for (RCLT) at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, the Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies and the Faculty of Letters of Leiden University. While the book was written under the primary authorship and responsibility of , the individual chapters were divided as follows: Pieter Muysken wrote sections 1.1–1.5 of chapter 1 and Adelaar the introductory pages of chapter 1 as well as sections 1.6–1.7. Adelaar also wrote chapter 2 except for section 2.15, chapter 3 except for section 3.2.8, and all of chapter 5. Muysken wrote chapters 4, 6 and 7, as well as the sections 2.15 and 3.2.8. ORTHOGRAPHIC CONVENTIONS

This book on Andean languages relies on heterogeneous sources, including premodern grammatical studies and vocabularies, as well as contemporary descriptions obtained by direct observation of living languages. These circumstances made it difficult to adopt a uniform orthographic practice. The spelling of colonial and other traditional sources has been preserved, allowing for marginal adaptations where the sources are internally inconsistent. Languages such as Allentiac, Muisca and Puquina, which have long been extinct, are known from premodern sources only, and the interpretation of the symbols used to represent them remains tentative. In the case of relatively recent data from languages that became extinct during the twentieth century,such as Mochica and Timote– Cuica, the identification of sounds can be problematic when the recorded materials are not in with modern linguistic standards. Such materials are exemplified in the original spelling as well. Finally, there are premodern sources relating to languages still spoken, for instance, ’s Araucanian grammar of 1606. The use of premodern sources includes exotic symbols, such as cɥ, c−h, h, γ and œ. Among the languages primarily known from premodern sources, the only one presented in a reconstructed, rather than an original spelling is Chol´on (see section 4.11.3). For most of the living languages we are on firmer ground, although for these too we have to rely on published sources with different methodological approaches, theoretical backgrounds and degrees of phonological abstraction. In view of the necessity to repre- sent such heterogeneous materials, we have opted for a phonetically based orthography such as commonly found in North American linguistic journals dealing with Amerindian languages (e.g. International Journal of American Linguistics). Consequently, several of the original symbols have been replaced with others, and adjustments have been made at the level of individual languages so as to facilitate the presentation of the linguistic facts in a unified way.1 In a number of cases (e.g. Guajiro l and r, Mapuche r, Quechua n and q) concessions have been made to established practice. Such deviations of the

1 We wish to apologise beforehand for the inevitable errors and inconsistencies that are inherent to this procedure. Orthographic Conventions xvii overall orthographic practice adhered to in this book are duly explained in the respective sections.

Vowels When only vowel quality is taken into consideration, most languages of the Andean region select their vowels from a set of five, including two front vowels (e, i), two rounded back vowels (o, u) and one low vowel (a). These vowels usually exhibit a certain amount of non-distinctive variation, which is not shown in the orthography except when the phonetic realisation itself is a topic of discussion. In addition, many Andean languages also have an unrounded vowel which may be high central, mid central, or high back. We represent this sixth vowel by means of the symbol  ,regardless of its exact phonetic nature and possible existing spelling conventions. For the representation of languages exhibiting an additional contrast between a high central and a mid we use the symbols  and ə to distinguish between the two. The main reason for following this procedure is to preserve unity in the presentation. It is, furthermore, justified by the consideration that the sixth vowel often shows a wide range of non-contrastive variation, depending on the phonetic environment in which it occurs, and the fact that the observations of different authors rarely coincide, even when they are dealing with the same language. In the absence of specialised phonetic studies, almost non-existent in the case of Andean languages, the exact phonetic nature of the sixth vowel generally remains uncertain. Vowel systems of a different qualitative structure are found in Mochica, in languages of the Amazonian lowlands, and in languages of Tierra del Fuego. They will be discussed in the respective chapters (sections 3.4.1, 4.6 and 6.4). For these cases, as well as in explanative phonetic representations relating to more current Andean systems, additional symbols (ɑ, α, œ, ε, ¨ı, ɔ, ɯ) are used.

Secondary articulations of the vowels – is indicated by a colon (a:, e:, i:, o:, u:), except when the long vowel consists of several -bearing units. In that case, the vowels are written separately (aa, etc.). Extra short vowels are marked as follows: aˇ, eˇ, ˇı, oˇ, uˇ. – Nasal vowels: a˜, e˜, ˜ı, o˜, u˜, etc. – Aspirated vowels: ah, eh, ih, oh,uh, etc. – Glottalised vowels: aʔ, eʔ, iʔ, oʔ, uʔ, etc. – Voiceless vowels: a, e, i, o, u, etc. ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ – Tonal contrast is indicated by means of an acute accent (for high or rising tone), a grave accent (for low or falling tone), a superscript level stroke (for mid level tone), or a circumflex (for a descending tonal glide): a´, a`, a¯, xviii Orthographic Conventions

aˆ. Contrastive is also indicated by means of an acute accent. Stress and tone are indicated only when contrastive.

Non-syllabic vowels When non-syllabic, the high vowels i and u are analysed as glides, hence they are written as y and w, respectively. This is always the case in -initial position (yV, wV ), and it is the preferred option in postvocalic syllable-final position (Vy, Vw). Occasionally, however, postvocalic glides are represented as vowels (Vi, Vu), when the status of vowel sequences in the language under discussion appears to favour that .

Consonants In the following overview the consonant symbols are grouped in categories: – Bilabial: plain stops p, b; implosive stop: ; ϕ, β; nasal m; glide w. – Labiodental: fricatives f, v. – Interdental: stops t, d; fricatives θ, ð; nasal n. ˆ ˆ ˆ – Alveodental: plain stops t, d; implosive stop ; c (ts in phonetic explanations), dz (dz before secondary articulation markers, as in dzy); fricatives s, z; nasal n. – Apico-alveolar: s¸; ts¸. – Alveopalatal: affricates cˇ, d zˇ; fricatives sˇ, zˇ; glide y. – Retroflex: stops .t, d. ;affricates c.ˇ, d.zˇ; fricatives .sˇ, .zˇ; nasal n. ; glide ɺ. – Palatalised velar (ich-laut): fricative: c¸;affricate: tc¸ . – Velar: stops: k, g; fricatives x, γ; nasal ŋ. – Uvular (or postvelar): stops q, G; fricatives x. , ʁ. – Glottal: fricative h; stop ʔ. (Note: h can also refer to a velar fricative because many Andean languages tend to use glottal and velar fricatives in a non-distinctive way.) – Laterals: plain (voiced alveodental) l; interdental l; retroflex .l;voiceless fricative l˜;voiceless affricate λ-. – Vibrants: voiced tap r; trill rr; tap with palatal affrication rˇ; retroflex flap .

Secondary articulations of the consonants – is indicated by doubling the consonant symbol (pp, kk, nn, etc.). Double rr represents a trill, rather than only a geminate. (Quechua nn is a cluster [ŋn]; see section 3.2.5.) Orthographic Conventions xix

– Coarticulation is indicated by juxtaposition of the symbols: kp, pk, pkw. – Glottalisation: p’, t’, c’ˇ , k’, q’, etc. – Aspiration (of stops and affricates): ph, th, cˇh, kh, qh, etc. – Preaspiration or (of resonants): hm, hn, hr, etc. – Palatalisation: ty, ky, ny, ly, etc. – Labialisation: pw, mw, kw, xw, etc. – Prenasalisation (or postoralisation): mb, nd, ŋg. – Postnasalisation (or preoralisation): bm, dn, gŋ. – Click-like articulation: p<, m<. – Syllabic resonants: l, n. ˚ ˚

Other symbols and conventions VVowel (only in phonological explanation). C Consonant. [. . .] Phonetic representation or tentative pronunciation. Etymological provenance or borrowing source. <...> Symbols used in premodern sources. { ...} Explanation of morphological structure. - Morpheme boundary. Division of morphemic glosses. = Division of constituents in reduplicated forms. .Division of speech elements covered by a single morphemic gloss. Division of morphemic glosses relating to a portmanteau speech element. ABBREVIATIONS

In the example sentences of this book morphemic glosses may consist of numbers, letters, or letter combinations. For reasons of presentation, all letter combinations have been limited to a maximum of two elements. is indicated by means of the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, which refer to the four-person system characteristic of the structure of some of the languages treated in this work:

1 first person (speaker) 2 second person (addressee) 3 third person (neither) 4 fourth person (speaker + addressee)

These numbers can be followed by the symbols S (subject), O (object), or P (possessor) without an intervening hyphen or dot:

1S, 2S, 3S, 4S first-person subject, etc. 1O, 2O, 3O, 4O first-person object, etc. 1P, 2P, 3P, 4P first-person possessor, etc.

The following list is an inventory of all the remaining morphemic glosses, which consist of letters or letter combinations.

A absolute (as opposed to relational) absolutive (as opposed to ergative) AB AC AD additive (‘also’, ‘even’) AF affirmative (evidential) AG agentive nominaliser AJ adjectiviser AL List of abbreviations xxi

AN anticompletive (‘still’, ‘yet’) AO AP applicative AR attributive AS assistance AT attenuator AU augmentative AV adverbialiser AX auxiliary B BN beneficiary C CA CD CE centripetal (converging motion) CF centrifugal (diverging motion) CL classifier or shape morpheme (with semantic specification, e.g. CL: round object) CM completive (‘already’) CN continuative CO co-ordination CP comparative (‘like’) CR circular motion (‘go around’) CS courteous CT change of topic CU customary CV verbaliser D dual DA DB distributive DC deictic DD different directions DE desiderative DF definite DG degree DI diminutive DL delimitative (‘just’, ‘only’) DM detrimental xxii List of abbreviations

DP deductive past DR directional DS different subjects (in switch-reference systems) DT distal DU dubitative DV declarative DW downward motion Eergative case EC exclamation EM emphatic ES external subject EU euphonic element EV event/action EX exclusive (addressee excluded) F future FA factitive (‘make’) FE feminine FM factual mood FN future-oriented nominaliser FO focus FR far remote G GA genitive agent GO goal GP generic pair GR gerund H hither (motion towards speaker) HB habitual past HN honorific HO HS hearsay (evidential) HY hypothetical Iinverse IA imperfective aspect IC inchoative ID indicative mood IE IF infinitive List of abbreviations xxiii

II indefinite IK indirect knowledge IL inferential IM imperative mood IN inclusion (‘provided with’) IP inferential past IR interrogative IS IT intensive IU immediate future IV inclusive (addressee included) IW inward motion L LA lack (‘not having’) LB left-behind object LI limitative case (‘until’) LK linking element LN locality nominaliser LP lexicalised prefix LS lexicalised suffix LV locative verbaliser M momentaneous MA motion across (‘traverse’) MD medial MS masculine MT motion N nominaliser NA narrative past NC non-control ND non-determinate NE negation NF near future NM NP nominal past NR near remote NS non-speaker NT non-transitive xxiv List of abbreviations

NU neutral O object OB obligation OC OE ongoing event OS ownership (‘having’) OV obviative P possessor PA PC paucal PD predicate marker PE perfect tense PF perfective aspect PI privative PL plural PM permissive PN present tense PO potential mood PR progressive PS passive PT (path) PU pronoun PV previous event PX proximate Q question marker QU quotative R relativiser RC reciprocal RD RE recent past RF reflexive RL relational (possessed) RM remote past RO reportative RP repetitive RR referential RS restitutive RU remote future List of abbreviations xxv

S subject SA simple aspect SD sudden discovery tense SG singular SI simulation SJ SM simultaneous SO source SN stative nominaliser SP supine SQ sequential SR speaker SS same subject (in switch-reference systems) ST state SU subordination T transitive transitiviser TF transformative (‘become’) TH thither (motion not towards speaker) TO topic TS thematic suffix TV thematic vowel Uurgency UF unfulfilled UG undergoer UN unspecified subject UW upward motion Vverb verbaliser VE verbal extension VO vocative Z zero complement ZP zero person

1

Introduction

In his book Visi´on hist´orica del Per´u (A Historical Vision of Peru) the Peruvian historian Pablo Macera (1978) dates the beginning of human presence in the middle Andes at about 20,000 BC. The supposition of such an early human occupation, difficult to explain within the context of New World prehistory, is based on datings relating to excavations conducted by MacNeish at the highland site of of the Pacaicasa complex near Ayacucho (cf. MacNeish 1979). These datings are now considered very controversial (cf. Rick 1988). Although Macera himself recognises the uncertain character of the 20,000 BC date, its value is more than just scientific. It acquires the character of a fictitious date, needed to express the emotional feeling of timeless antiquity often associated with Andean culture and tradition, a feeling that is best put into words by the expression milenarismo andino (‘Andean millenarism’). It is not the cold evidence of radiocarbon datings, but the conscience of an immobile human society that clings fatalistically to age-old agricultural traditions perfectly adjusted to the formidable Andean landscape, that determines the view of the Andean intellectual until today. It is the view of a reality which has always been there, seemingly immune to the triviality of programmes aimed at modernisation and globalisation. In the meantime, the antiquity of human settlement in the Andean region, indeed in all of South America, remains a matter of debate. The rise of sea levels at the end of the Ice Age (± 10,000–8000 BC) may have hidden the traces of early coastal occupation. Excavations conducted by Dillehay at Monte Verde, near in the south of , have brought evidence of a relatively well-developed village culture that had its beginnings as early as 11,500 BC. (Dillehay 1989–97; cf. also Fiedel 1992). The inhospitable southern tip of South America at the Strait of Magellan (Fell’s Cave) was inhabited about 9000 BC. When considering the linguistic evidence, the bewildering variety of mutually unrelated languages found in South America suggests a protracted, gradual process of penetration, followed by long periods of isolation. This evidence appears to be in conflict with the traditional concept of a rapid colonisation of the subcontinent by big-game hunters, associated with the Clovis horizon of the North 2 1 Introduction

American plains (± 9500 BC). For an overview of the arguments in favour of a rapid colonisation of South America after 9500 BC, see Lynch (1999). For the Pacific side of the South American continent, the alternative of an early human penetration in a context of marine and coastal activity remains attractive to those familiar with the Andean situation, even though there is little support from archaeology. The date at which human activity throughout the Andean region becomes unequivocally visible is 9000 BC. From a cultural point of view, the Andean civilisation initially did not lag behind the rest of the world. Its agricultural beginnings were among the oldest in the world. The site of Guitarrero cave in the Callej´on de Huaylas (north-central Peru) contains evidence of plant domestication (beans, peppers) before 8000 BC (Lynch 1980; Fiedel 1992: 193). in the Andes reached a high degree of sophistication, both in diversity of crops and in engineering techniques (terraces, raised fields, irrigation works). The Andean camelids possibly became domesticated as early as 4000 BC (evidence from Telarmachay, Jun´ın, in central Peru; Fiedel 1992: 195). The mummification techniques of the Chinchorro fishermen of the coast near Arica in northern Chile (5000 to 1500 BC) predated those of the Egyptians (Arriaza 1995). The construction of the extensive (pre- ceramic) urban settlement of Caral-Chupacigarro, which has been excavated since 1996 near Supe in the central Peruvian coastal area, has been dated at about 2650 BC (Shady Sol´ıs 1997). Curiously, the Andean society failed to develop an indigenous writing sys- tem, a circumstance that sets it apart from other areas of civilisation elsewhere in the world. The variety of native cultures and languages in South America, in particular in the Andes and on its eastern slopes, is remarkable even within the context of the New World. Kaufman (1990) has calculated the number of language families and geneti- cally isolated languages in the subcontinent at 118. Recent advances in the study of historical-comparative relations have tended to reduce this number, but proposed group- ings reducing the number of families mainly concern the eastern part of South America (cf. Dixon and Aikhenvald 1999). The Andean area, with its wealth of mutually unre- lated languages, has remained as opaque as ever in this respect. The linguistic diversity is not only genetic; the typological distance between some of the language groups is also impressive. It suffices to have a quick look at almost neighbouring languages such as Quechua, Mochica and Harakmbut to be struck by the differences. The historical picture is further obscured by the radical changes that have affected South America during the last five centuries of the second millennium. Scores of native languages, including entire families, have disappeared, often without leaving a trace. Others have dwindled to insignificant numbers. A few of them, including Aymara, Mapuche and Quechua, maintained a prominent position during the colonial period, partly at the cost of other languages, only to become endangered themselves 1 Introduction 3 in the subsequent period. Mapuche, Muisca and Quechua acted as linguae francae for local tongues, which were considered obstacles to evangelisation and effective domi- nation. Most languages, however, gave way to Spanish, the language introduced by the conquerors. The Spanish occupation, which for the Andean region began in Panam´a, the Caribbean coast of Colombia and , and at the mouth of the River Plate, brought death and destruction for many native groups. The prosperous and numerous Cueva people of the Darien region in eastern Panam´awere exterminated between 1510 and 1535, their country depopulated, given back to the jungle, and partly occupied by other na- tive groups (Romoli 1987). Many others were forced to participate in civil wars or to join discovery parties geared at finding the legendary country of (Hemming 1978). Epidemics of devastating dimensions swept through the continent even before the conquest. , the last ruler of the undivided , became one of their victims. After the arrival of the Europeans and during the first half of the colonial period the native population dropped dramatically. Many nations, such as the Quimbaya of the Cauca river valley in Colombia, known as the New World’s most talented goldsmiths, disappeared with their languages during that period. At the same time a benign and protective colonial rule guaranteed a state of relative quietude and prosperity. During most of the colonial period widely used native languages, such as Quechua, benefited from a certain prestige and legal protection. In 1770 the new Bourbon administration headed by Charles III banned the use of the indigenous languages from his domains and started a period of effective repression (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 499–511; Mannheim 1991: 74–9). In Peru the repression gained momentum in 1781 after the unsuccessful outcome of the Indian rebellion led by Tupac Amaru II. The independence of the South American nations was at first a new drawback for the native populations. As a last manifestation of indigenous sentiment, the act of 1816 declaring the independence of the United Provinces of R´ıo de la Plata, the predecessor of Argentina, was printed in Tucum´an both in Spanish and in Quechua. Subsequently, the linguistic and cultural rights of native South Americans were discontinued everywhere. In the more traditional areas with large indigenous populations, the hacienda system with its oppressive bondage practices reached its worst dimensions. Physical elimination by military forces or headhunters struck the Indians of Argentina, and Chilean Tierra del Fuego, who had largely remained independent throughout the colonial period. The Araucanians of southern Chile lost their independence and integrity as a nation. The increase in the exploitation of rubber around the turn of the nineteenth century brought untold misery to the tribes of the Peruvian and Colombian rainforest, including slavery, deportation and ruthless massacres (Taussig 1987; Gray 1996). Until the second half of the twentieth century, the attitude of the South American governments and national societies remained indifferent to the existence of the native 4 1 Introduction languages, if not overtly hostile. The survival of these languages depended on the per- severance of their speakers, occasionally with the support of sympathising groups, such as indigenista circles or missionaries. Only during the last decades has there been a growing awareness at the national level of the importance of the cultural and linguistic heritage and the practical consequences of a multilingual reality. It started in 1975 in Peru with the recognition of Quechua as a second national language, a measure now largely forgotten. Meanwhile, the multicultural and multilingual character of the Bolivian na- tion has been recognised at the official level. A strong movement of highland Indians has come to play a crucial role in Ecuadorian politics. Finally, the cultural and terri- torial rights of native groups have been recognised in Colombia’s constitution of 1991 (see section 1.4 below). There have been several more or less successful attempts to introduce bilingual education in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. Needless to say, the prac- tical elaboration of all these measures and their effectiveness still leave much to be desired.

1.1 The languages of the Andes The languages of the Andes are not at all structurally similar, nor directly related, and are spoken in a huge area. Nonetheless, there are many connections between them, and they share a recent history of domination by Spanish. To us falls the task of both pointing out general traits, and doing justice to their various properties. It is only when compared to each other that their individuality emerges most clearly. In addition, we must try to stay clear of viewing these languages as static. In Race et histoire (1952) L´evi-Strauss warns against viewing other civilisations as either infant or stationary. When we sit in a train, our perception of the movement of other trains depends on the direction they are travelling in, with respect to our own train. The history of the Andes is characterised by an alternation between periods of greater communication and integration of different peoples and languages, and periods of frag- mentation and individual development. For this reason we must find, on occasion, a middle perspective between the Andean region as a whole and individual languages. We have tried to establish this by describing the Andean languages grouped into different ‘spheres’, zones which at different points in time have functioned as single units. Within these cultural spheres, the languages have influenced each other, sometimes rather pro- foundly. Hence our repeated insistence on the phenomenon of language contact in the chapters that follow. This book consists of seven chapters. In the introductory chapter we begin by sketching the geographical and the historical context in which the languages of the Andes attained their present form and use. We then turn to an overview of the linguistic and demographic situation of the Indians in each of the Andean countries, and to the history of descriptive and comparative studies of the languages of the Andes. Finally, we give a brief outline of 1.1 The languages of the Andes 5 the history of classificatory efforts for the Andean languages. More details are provided in chapters 2 to 6, which deal with specific regions or spheres. Chapter 2 deals with the Chibcha Sphere, which we define as the Venezuelan Andes and Colombia, including some of the border areas of Colombia with Peru and Ecuador. In chapter 3 the Inca Sphere is discussed, roughly the area covered by the Inca empire: highland and coastal Ecuador and Peru, highland Bolivia, northern Chile and north- west Argentina. Chapter 4 deals with the eastern slopes of the Andes and the up- per Amazon basin in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, and some information on the area of Argentina, Bolivia and will be included. Chapter 5 is dedi- cated to the Araucanian Sphere: the Chilean coast and highlands and part of south- central Argentina. Chapter 6 treats the languages of Tierra del Fuego and adjacent . Chapter 7, finally, deals with the non-Indian languages, primarily Spanish, but also Afro- survivals, as well as Amerindian contact vernaculars. In addition, policies of bilingual education and language maintenance are surveyed. Language contact in the Andes has taken several forms. First, we find the use of spe- cific lexical items (e.g. the Quechua word waranqa ‘thousand’ or reflexes of Quechua atawalypa ‘chicken’, ‘rooster’) in a wide variety of languages, many of which have never been in direct contact with the language of source. This suggests extensive and, as Nordenski¨old (1922) argues, sometimes fairly rapid transmission, over a wide area. Second, we find cases of intense lexical influence from either a demographically or a culturally dominant language, as in the case of Mapuche influence on G¨un¨una K¨une in Argentina, or Quechua influence on Amuesha on the Andean foothills in Peru. Third, there is evidence of highly complex patterns of long-term convergence, inter- ference and mutual lexical influence in the contact between languages of the Aymaran and Quechuan families. The contact has been so intense in this case that for a long time the two families were thought to be directly related. We will address the question whether the situation of Aymara and Quechua is unique in South America, or whether there are other cases of intense mutual influence as well. Fourth, there are documented patterns of language mixture through relexification, e.g. in the case of Media Lengua in Ecuador and the Callahuaya in Bolivia, a group of itinerant herbal curers, who used a sort of secret language with elements of Puquina and Quechua. Fifth, a phenomenon frequently observed is the fusion of the remnants of a tribe that has been decimated in number with another more vigorous tribe. Under the protection of their new social environment such tiny groups may preserve a language for gener- ations, and only gradually adopt the dominant language, as in the Chiquitano area in Bolivia. 6 1 Introduction

Finally, the Indian languages of the Andes have responded in different ways to the pressures from Spanish, from incidental lexical borrowing, through convergence and relexification, to shift and substrate. In the chapters to follow these different types of contact will be explored in some detail.

1.2 Physical description The Andes – or, more properly speaking, the Cordilleras de los Andes – constitute a mountain range about 7,000 kilometres long. They stretch all along the west coast of South America, from near to Cape Horn. On the average, the Andes are 400 kilometres wide, but at the twentieth parallel, at the altitude of Bolivia, over 900 kilometres. Steep on the western or Pacific side, the Andes are flanked by lower ridges on the eastern side, providing a more gradual transition to the Amazon and La Plata basins. In the south the Andes start out as a single ridge, but in northern Chile they split up into several ridges, enclosing the widening (high plain) of Bolivia and southern Peru. Through northern Peru and Ecuador there are two ranges, with a valley in between. In southern Colombia these join again before fanning out over this country in three separate cordilleras, the easternmost of which reaches into Venezuela. The Andes are a very high range, with several dozen peaks above 6,000 metres, and generally very high passes. Only the Chamaya highlands, at the border between Ecuador and Peru, provide an easy passage from the Amazon basin to the Pacific, as Raymond (1988: 281) points out, providing the opportunity for tropical forest/coastal plain contacts starting in early prehistory. For our purposes, the physical characteristics of the Andes are important for a number of reasons. First of all, because of their inhospitable character they have provided zones of refuge for numerous indigenous groups. We have but to compare Bolivia, where both remote mountainous regions and inaccessible Andean foothill areas have provided niches for Indian languages, with the Argentinian plains, where widely spread Indian groups were destroyed by the regular Argentinian army in the nineteenth century, to realise the effect that the physical environment has in this respect. The linguistic and cultural zones of refuge exist both where extremely harsh conditions or poor soils made colonisation difficult or unprofitable, and where the terrain made communication with and travel to regional centres an ordeal. Within the ecological perspective taken here, it is important to ask ourselves, for each indigenous language in South America and each group, how come it still exists, resisting or escaping destruction or assimilation? A second crucial aspect of the Andes, with its often steep slopes, is that it has made available different ecosystems even to a single ethnic group. Thus we find the Quechua- speaking Saraguro Indians in the province of Loja, southern Ecuador, cultivating maize and other cereal crops in the highlands in alternation with the raising of cattle on the eastern slopes. Murra (1975) has documented a very extensive system of ‘vertically’ 1.3 Brief history of the region 7 organised barter and economic cooperation networks in the Andes of Bolivia and Peru, in which groups located at different altitudes were allied. Sometimes these subgroups belonged to the same ethnolinguistic group, sometimes they did not. Altiplano groups such as that of the Bolivian kingdom relied on an archipelago of lower-down settlements for their leaves and maize crops. Third, the mountains influence the climates in the Andean region enormously, in conjunction with the Humboldt current. In the extreme south, the western slopes are humid, and on the eastern side, Patagonia, it is dry. Near Valparaiso, however, where the Humboldt current reaches the Chilean coastline, the coast becomes a desert and the east- ern side more humid. This is the situation throughout Peru. At the altitude of the Ecuadorian border it changes again: tropical rains fall on both sides of the Andes. In Colombia, the coastal zone is hot and humid, and the central valleys are cooler. Thus we have virtually all existing climates represented in the region we are studying: from the Pacific deserts of Chile and Peru through the rainforest near the Brazilian borders of Bolivia, Peru and Colombia, to the permanent snow of the mountains in the altiplano regions around .

1.3 Brief history of the region We will sketch the prehistory of the Andean region on the basis of Peruvian prehistory, since it has been studied in the greatest detail and provides a point of reference for the whole region. At various points we will developments in the northern and southern Andes to the central region focused on here. In Keatinge (1988a, b) the archaeological evidence is reviewed, and it is concluded that the earliest human occupation of the central Andes that is well documented dates back to 9000–8000 BC. The early occupants were hunters and gatherers, and they had well-defined lithic technologies. Soon settlements emerged, on the coast centred around fishing and gathering shellfish, and in the highlands based on the domestication of plants and animals. Although in the central Andes the preceramic period lasted till around 1800 BC, there is evidence of high levels of cultural evolution, e.g. in large constructions such as at Sech´ın Alto. The ceramic period is characterised by phases in which cultural elements were shared by groups in the whole central Andes, called Horizons, and intermediary periods in which cultural developments (as reflected, for instance, in ceramic patterns) were more regional. The Early Horizon (900 BC– AD 200), is associated with the Chavin de Hu´antar religious shrine and represents the consolidation of a pan-Andean religious foundation. The Middle Horizon (AD 600–1000, according to Keatinge 1988a, b) is linked with the two large urban centres of Huari and Tiahuanaco, which may have been the capitals of two empires: Tiahuanaco around the Titicaca basin and extending into western Bolivia and northern Chile, and Huari extending as far as the northern Peruvian coastal plains. These zones of influence did not last for more than two centuries, but they formed the 8 1 Introduction scene for a large network of exchange of goods, visual motifs and patterns of organisation throughout the whole central Andes. The shared religious heritage remains, however, in the subsequent period of regionalisation and is preserved in such centres as Pachacamac. During this period of regionalisation we do see large kingdoms emerging, particularly on the coastal plains of northern Peru, such as the Chim´u kingdom. The Late Horizon corresponds to the Inca period, to which we will turn shortly. To the north in Ecuador we find equally old early settlements, both near and on the Santa Elena Peninsula, where there are traces of some of the earliest New World ceramics and textiles. Ecuador was at the crossroads between the Peruvian civilisations just mentioned and circum-Caribbean cultures. The bivalve shell spondylus, fished along the Pacific coast of Ecuador (and later much further north as well), was a highly valued object of trade, not just in Ecuador but also in Peru, particularly in the Chav´ın culture. Colombian archaeological remains date back to 8000 BC at the site of (Correal and Van der Hammen 1977; Lynch 1999). Ceramic techniques were known as early as 3000 BC at the site of Puerto Hormiga on the Colombian Caribbean coast (Reichel Dolmatoff 1965; Rojas de Perdomo 1979; Allaire 1999). The earliest construc- tions at San Agust´ın date back to 500 BC (Rojas de Perdomo 1979), but the highly developed -working techniques, which inspired the Spanish thirst for gold and led to the myth of El Dorado, generally can be dated as having arisen in the first millennium. The San Agust´ın culture lasted until shortly before the arrival of the Spaniards. Although the Andes are associated in popular opinion with the Inca civilisation, historically the Incas played a relatively minor role. In the early part of the fifteenth century, they rose as a military power in southern Peru. Under Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui the southern highlands were conquered, and one by one the earlier Peruvian states, including powerful Chim´u, were toppled. After 1460 his son Tupac Inca conquered the northern highlands, as far as Quito in Ecuador, and after 1471 highland Bolivia and adjacent parts of Chile and Argentina were incorporated into the growing Inca empire. While most highland territories thus became Inca, the tropical forest remained out of reach for the new conquerors. Unlike earlier military powers, the Incas were not content with looting new territory, but rather they organised and restructured it. Huayna Capac, who succeeded around 1492, only added small parts to the empire, and withstood the first major assault on it, from the Chiriguanos in the southeast. When Huayna Capac died in 1527, his two sons, Huascar and Atahuallpa, fought over domination for five years, and when a small group of Spaniards under invaded Peru in 1532 they could profit from the divisions caused by the wars of succession and from the disaffections among local elites of nations recently conquered by the Incas. In addition, the Incas were greatly debilitated by wavesofEuropean epidemic diseases, smallpox and measles, which had reached the Andes even before the advent of the Spaniards themselves. 1.3 Brief history of the region 9

From 1538 on Peru was firmly under the control of the Spanish colonialists, and it remained under their control inspite of uprisings and resistance during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Resistance to Spanish colonial rule took several forms. While the Spaniards had been able to conquer most of the Andean region rather rapidly, in the monta˜na,onthe eastern slopes, the Incas held out for a long time, in fact until 1572, in their stronghold at Vilcabamba. While Europeans played the dominant role in the highlands, it should not be thought that there were no Indian rebellions during the colonial and republican periods. Messianic movements (Ossio 1973) kept flaring up throughout the colonial and early republican periods. Only a few can be mentioned here. In 1564 there was a revolt in the Ayacucho region of Peru, inspired by native religious leaders, called Taki Onqoy (lit. ‘dancing sickness’, i.e. ‘dancing into a trance’), which spread through large parts of central Peru and lasted seven years (Millones 1973, 1990). Around 1780 there was the famous uprising in southern Peru of Tupac Amaru II, a remote descendant of the Incas, which gained enormous peasant support before being squashed. The P´aez in Colombia withstood the attacks by various Spanish conquistadores, in- cluding Belalc´azar,1 but here also the Spaniards profited from conflicts between the various Indian nations. The Magdalena valley remained difficult to control for the colo- nial rulers until the nineteenth century. Just as the Incas had never been able to conquer the Mapuche in Chile, the Spanish conquistadores, after some initial successes, were unable to bring this Araucanian group down. Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Mapuche retained their inde- pendence and proved to be a formidable enemy, requiring repeated military expeditions by the colonial and later by the republican powers. After new hostilities, in 1869 and again in 1880, they were finally subdued or ‘pacified’ in 1882. They were forced to share their limited agricultural area with intrusive settlers, but a majority has stayed in the heartland south of the Biob´ıo river. The independence from Spain of the Andean regions and the formation of new nation-states brought some changes for the Indian populations, but in many ways the patterns established in the colonial period persisted. The overt rebellion against Spain started in 1810 at the two opposite ends of the – Caracas and Buenos Aires – and spread from there to the central Andean regions. Bol´ıvar in the north first liberated Venezuela, then Colombia and then Ecuador, with the help of Sucre. San Mart´ın started in the Argentine and then liberated Chile. The two met in Peru, where the battle of Ayacucho in 1824 marked the effective end of Spanish rule in South America.

1 Benalcazar or Benalca¸car in the colonial sources. 10 1 Introduction

Even though Bol´ıvar attempted to form larger nation-states, e.g. uniting Peru and Bolivia, and uniting Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, the contours of what were to become the Spanish American republics became clearer as the Wars of Independence were fought. The republics founded in the early nineteenth century have remained till today, and have now developed strong national identities. It would be a mistake to think that independence was inspired by the Indians or was beneficial to them. The opposite is the case, for several reasons. To begin with, independence from Spain did not mean full autonomy. When the Spanish officials were gone, European bankers, traders and settlers stepped in. The nineteenth century was a period of more intensive exploitation of a new series of natural resources in . The guano dug up along the Peruvian coast, the saltpetre mined in northern Chile and the rubber gathered in the upper Amazon basin are examples of this. In many areas, the Indians were driven from their home- steads by new colonists or forced to participate in the new explorations under hardship conditions. Further, the nationalism accompanying the forging of new nations was often translated into a desire for the cultural homogeneity of the citizenry. Public education, in Spanish, wasextended into rural areas. Cities expanded, and urban norms and values were seen as signs of modernity. All of this meant that Indian lifestyles were depreciated and threatened. An extreme result is the genocide perpetrated against the Indians of the Argentinian under the command of General Roca (1878–82). Finally, independence had been fought for and won by elites associated with the import and export sectors of the colonial economies, who had been clamouring for trading possibilities with different nations, against the Spanish monopoly. These elites favoured the breaking up of the traditional feudal landholding system, which had exploited the Indian work force but at the same time sheltered their culture, or rather a complex amalgam of their traditional culture and colonial patterns. Modernisation of agriculture was accompanied by the increasing mobility of rural labourers, and hence by the splitting up of traditional Indian communities. These three factors still hold and help shape the relations between Indians and non- Indians in the Andes. In recent history organised Indian movements have allied them- selves with political movements, but major guerrilla activities such as Sendero Luminoso in Peru and FARCin Colombia are only peripherally related to Indian movements (cf. the contributions in Eckstein 1989).

1.4 A brief overview of the different Andean countries All Andean countries have a native population which speaks several native languages. However, the number of languages that became extinct since 1500 probably exceeds 1.4 Brief overview of the Andean countries 11

Table 1.1 Percentage of Indian population in the different Andean countries (a fairly conservative estimate based on Instituto Indigenista Interamericano 1993)

Total population Amerindian population Percentage

Venezuela 21,300,000 315,815 1.48 Colombia 35,600,000 620,052 1.74 Ecuador 10,600,000 2,634,494 24.85 Peru 22,900,000 8,793,295 38.39 Bolivia 8,200,000 4,142,187 50.51 Chile 14,000,000 989,745 7.06 Argentina 33,900,000 372,996 1.10 that of the languages still spoken. There is no longer a full coincidence between Indian descent and the preservation of the native languages. Nor are languages always spoken in their original locations. The social developments of the second half of the twentieth century have induced many Indians to migrate to urban centres both within and outside their original living areas. The countries involved in our study differ widely in the variety and relative impor- tance of native languages. Consider the figures for 1993 of the percentages of the Indian ethnic groups of the total population in different countries (these figures refer to cultur- ally identifiable ethnic groups, not to speakers of Indian languages) in table 1.1. Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru differ clearly from Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Venezuela in the size of their indigenous populations. Although overall figures have changed somewhat since 1993, the percentages remain comparable. These figures are rather conservative estimates; for individual countries, sometimes higher figures are given. With the excep- tion of Chile, all Andean countries mention Amerindian languages explicitly in their constitutions. Of course, these documents are no more than that, and explicit mention in the constitution is no guarantee of the existence or otherwise of an indigenous language. However, these texts do reflect the self-perception of the political classes, at least, of the different countries. Let us briefly look at these countries one by one. Venezuela.Insofar as the region covered by this book is concerned, the Indian languages of Venezuela have been preserved mainly in the area to the west of Lake Maracaibo. In the Andes all native languages, including several isolates and small fam- ilies, are considered extinct. The 1999 Venezuelan constitution states in its article 9 that Spanish is the official language, while the indigenous languages are also for official use by the and must be respected throughout the Republic, since they constitute a cultural 12 1 Introduction heritage of the nation and of humanity at large.2 Article 100 provides for the recog- nition of cultural diversity and equality of all cultures that constitute the Venezuelan identity.3 Finally, there is a transitory measure regulating the election of indigenous po- litical representatives, which includes the requirement that they speak their indigenous languages. Colombia. The Andean region of Colombia occupies the western, central and northern parts of the country, and is bordered by tropical lowlands in the east. The Andean mountain ranges, which run from north to south, are separated by mighty river valleys and extensive forest areas, especially along the Pacific coast. At the arrival of the Europeans many autonomous ethnic groups inhabited Andean Colombia, which has preserved part of its original . The languages that have survived belong to different families and constitute linguistic islands in a largely Hispanicised country. The Indian groups of the Colombian Andes are known for their spirit of independence and ethnic awareness. Their high level of organisation is rooted in the defence of their rights to reserved areas (resguardos) inherited from the colonial period. Many of them encourage efforts to codify and preserve their languages as long as these are compatible with the interests of the community. The 1991 constitution of Colombia (with modifications in 1997) states in article 10 that Spanish is the official language of Colombia while the languages and dialects of the ethnic groups are also official in their territories. Education in communities with their own linguistic traditions will be bilingual.4 Ecuador. Ecuador has one of the highest percentages of Indian population in South America. It is mainly concentrated in the inter-Andean valleys and the Amazonian low- land to the east, referred to as the oriente in Ecuador. Some small communities inhabit the northern part of the forested region separating the Pacific Ocean from the Andean ranges. The majority of Ecuadorian Indians speak Quichua, the local variety of the Quechua lan- guage spoken in the Andean countries further south. Quichua is found in the entire high- land region except for its northern and southern extremities (in the provinces of Carchi and Loja). The Quechuanisation of highland Ecuador became complete during the colo- nial period when it replaced a multitude of local languages. At the same time Quichua was introduced in the Ecuadorian oriente,where it also gradually replaced some of the local

2 El idioma oficial es el castellano. Los idiomas ind´ıgenas tambi´en son de uso oficial para los pueblos ind´ıgenas y deben ser respetados en todo el territorio de la Rep´ublica, por constituir patrimonio cultural de la Naci´on y de la humanidad. 3 Las culturas populares constitutivas de la venezolanidad gozan de atenci´on especial, recono- ci´endose y respet´andose la interculturalidad bajo el principio de igualdad de las culturas. 4 El castellano es el idioma oficial de Colombia. Las lenguas y dialectos de los gruposetnicos ´ son tambi´en oficiales en sus territorios. La ense˜nanza que se imparta en las comunidades con tradiciones ling¨u´ısticas propias ser´a biling¨ue. 1.4 Brief overview of the Andean countries 13 languages. Varese(1983) estimated the Indian population of the Ecuadorian oriente at be- tween 30,703 (minimum) and 58,353 (maximum). The Abya–Yala cultural organisation on its website Peoples of Ecuador (http://abyayala.nativeweb.org/ecuador/pueblos/php) mentions a figure of over a 100,000. Article 1 of the 1998 constitution of Ecuador perhaps goes furthest in declaring that the state respects and stimulates the development of all the Ecuadorian languages. While Spanish is the official language, Quechua, Shuar and the other ancestral languages are to be used officially for the indigenous peoples.5 Article 23 states that every person has the right to be informed in her or his mother tongue, of proceedings against her or him.6 Article 69, finally, guarantees a form of bilingual education in which the indigenous language is the principal one and Spanish the language for intercultural relations.7 Peru. Like Ecuador, Peru has an Indian population of several millions concentrated mainly in the Andes. The Peruvian eastern lowlands (selva) and the foothills (monta˜na) separating them from the Andean highlands are inhabited by a substantial number of ethnic groups. Their number has been estimated between 200,000 and 220,850 (Varese 1983). More recent estimates (Pozzi-Escot 1998) are slightly higher, but the number of speakers of lowland languages of five years and older has been calculated at 130,803 by Chirinos Rivera (2001). The Peruvian coast harbours several communities that have native American roots but have lost their language. The Andean highlands are dominated by the presence of two languages, Quechua and Aymara.Peruvian Quechua shows a considerable amount of internal dialect diversity. The number of Quechua speakers in Peru has been calculated at 4,402,023 (Cerr´on- Palomino 1987a). A recent estimate by Chirinos Rivera (2001), based on the national census of 1993, is much lower, however: 3,199,474 speakers of five years and older. Aymara is mainly confined to the southern departments of , and and has around 350,000 speakers in Peru. It has 412,215 speakers of five years and older according to Chirinos Rivera. Article 48 of the 1993 Peruvian constitution talks of official languages in the plural, declaring these to be Spanish and, in those zones where they are dominant, Quechua, Aymara and the other aboriginal languages.8 In the general motivation for the 1993 con- stitution it is mentioned that Peru is to be conceived of as a multiethnic and multicultural

5 El Estado respeta y estimula el desarrollo de todas las lenguas de los ecuatorianos. El castellano es el idioma oficial. El quichua, el shuar y los dem´as idiomas ancestrales son de uso oficial para los pueblos ind´ıgenas, en los t´erminos que fija la ley. 6 Toda persona tendr´aelderecho a ser oportuna y debidamente informada, en su lengua materna, de las acciones iniciadas en su contra. 7 El estado garantizar´aelsistema de educaci´on intercultural biling¨ue; enel ´ se utilizar´a como lengua principal la de la cultura respectiva, y el castellano como idioma de relaci´on intercultural. 8 Son idiomas oficiales el castellano y, en las zonas donde predominen, tambi´en lo son el quechua, el aimara y las dem´as lenguas abor´ıgenes, seg´un la ley. 14 1 Introduction country, where all citizens have the right to express themselves in their own language before any authority.9 Bolivia. The Bolivian highland region is again characterised by the dominance of Quechua and Aymara. Only small pockets of speakers of other highland languages remain. In the lowlands surrounding the northern edge of the Andean high plateau there is a wide array of small, genetically isolated languages. The number of Quechua speakers in Bolivia is estimated at 2,194,099 on the basis of the 1992 census figures, that of Aymara speakers at 1,503,754 (Alb´o 1995, I: 19). Speakers of the lowland languages are estimated at more than 96,000 (Alb´o 1995, I: 19). The 1967 constitution of Bolivia, with modifications dating from 1994, guarantees in article 171 the rights of the indigenous peoples, including those concerning their identity, values, languages and customs, and institutions.10 Chile. The Mapuche people, who constitute the majority of the Chilean indigenous population, are mainly concentrated in the region called La Araucan´ıa in the south of that country. Originally, they inhabited most of the central and southern mainland parts of Chile, including the island of Chilo´e, but centuries of war and colonising pressure have reduced their territorial space. Although there may be a million people of Mapuche descent, only an estimated 40 per cent continue to speak the language. There are no reliable figures as to the actual number of speakers, however. In addition to Mapuche only a few other native languages are found in the northern and southern extremities of the country. The current Chilean constitution makes no reference, as far as we could establish, to language and culture, indigenous or not. This may reflect the fact that Chileans tend not to perceive themselves as a partly Amerindian nation. Argentina. The northwestern part of Argentina is inhabited by Indians and belonging to the Andean cultural sphere. Many of them speak Quechua or did so in the past. The Gran Chaco, to the east of the northern Argentinian Andes, is inhabited by the Tupi–Guaran´ı Chiriguano and several other important indigenous groups speaking Guaicuruan and Matacoan languages. Araucanian (Mapuche) is the dominant Indian language in the south and southwest of Argentinia. Other groups in Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego are extinct or nearly so. In the central and western part of the country all

9 La primera visi´on que tiene el Proyecto concibe al Per´u como pa´ıs pluri´etnico y pluricultural; en consideraci´on a ello el Proyecto comienza estableciendo por ejemplo, que todos los peruanos tienen el derecho a expresarse en su propio idioma, no solamente en castellano, sino tambi´en en quechua o en aymara, ante cualquier autoridad. 10 Se reconocen, respetan y protegen en el marco de la ley, los derechos sociales, econ´omicos y culturales de los pueblos ind´ıgenas que habitan en el territorio nacional, especialmente los relativos a sus tierras comunitarias de origen garantizando del uso y aprovechamiento sostenible de los recursos naturales, a su identidad, valores, lenguas y costumbres e instituciones. 1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages 15 aboriginal Indian languages have disappeared. Indians or people of local indigenous descent number several hundred thousand in Argentina. Article 75 of the 1994 constitution of Argentina states that Congress must recognise the ethnic and cultural pre-existence of the Argentinian indigenous peoples, and guarantee the respect for their identity and right to bilingual and intercultural education.11 The term ‘pre-existence’ presumably refers to the Argentinian self-perception as a non- Indian immigrant nation.

1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages Little if anything is known about linguistics in the preconquest era, although there may have been awareness of linguistic differences in the Inca empire. The colonial era, in which missionary priests started recording the richness of the Indian linguistic heritage, is well worth describing in some detail. The nineteenth century is dominated by laymen: primarily European scholars, often with an archaeological and historical interest. In the twentieth century we find a stronger American presence, in addition to the emergence of groups of researchers in the different Andean countries themselves. The recent period shows several new developments: the participation of speakers of native languages in the research, the widening concern for language use, the concern about language endangerment and the role of multilingualism in Andean society. We will describe the developments in these periods in sequence, first looking at the external history of language study in each period, and then consider the treatment of a particular grammatical construction. Relative clauses in Quechua are used as an example to illustrate different phases in the thinking about Andean languages: they are complex and unfamiliar enough to have posed a challenge for different generations of outside scholars.

1.5.1 The colonial period The first data on any Andean language gathered by an outsider, as far as we know, consist of vocabulary noted down by Pigafetta, as Vocables Des G´eantz Pathagoniens. Antonio de Pigafetta accompanied Fernando de Magalh˜aes (Magellan) on his voyage around the world between 1519 and 1522 (Pigafetta 1956: 177 ff). The list of words includes body parts, some terms referring to social status (her ‘chief’) and the physical universe. No grammatical items were recorded, except chen [ˇcen] ‘us’. The list reveals only a superficial dialogue context and probably reflects some profound misunderstandings. Contacts did not lead to immediate colonisation. This was different, of course, when

11 Reconocer la preexistenciaetnica ´ y cultural de los pueblos ind´ıgenas argentinos. Garantizar el respeto a su identidad y el derecho a una educaci´on biling¨ue e intercultural... 16 1 Introduction

Table 1.2 Early grammars of Andean languages (arranged from north to south)

Chibcha 1609 Mochica 1644 Fernando de la Carrera Quechua (Inca) 1560 Domingo de Santo Tom´as 1607 Diego Gonz´alez Holgu´ın Aymara 1603 Ludovico Bertonio Morocosi (Mojo) 1699 Anonymous Jesuit Mapuche 1606 Luis de Valdivia Allentiac 1607 Luis de Valdivia Millcayac 1607 Luis de Valdivia

the Andes were taken from the north by Spanish bands of conquistadores in the 1530s. With the conquistadores came the priests. From the very beginning of the European presence in South America Indian languages were studied and documented by Roman Catholic missionaries. Some of the early lin- guistic descriptions written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are admirably accurate for the time. They contain a wealth of information, which is particularly valu- able when placed in the interpretative context of recent findings. Rowe (1974) calculates that by 1700 grammars of 21 Amerindian languages had been published, 19 of which dealt with languages of Mexico and South America. In addition, we find a large num- ber of vocabularies, , etc. Some of the first grammars written for Andean languages are listed in table 1.2. The early grammars had an ecclesiastical use, and this meant that they were couched in a vocabulary a priest could understand. Grammatical descriptions often ‘reduced’ grammars to the Latin mould. Most missionaries used the model developed by the Spanish grammarian Antonio de Nebrija in his Introductiones Latinae (c.1488); see D¨ummler (1997). Still, we should not underestimate the achievement of early colonial grammarians. First of all, they were writing at a time when very few languages had been described yetinEurope. Fray Domingo de Santo Tom´as’s (1560a) grammar of Quechua antedates the first grammars of German (1573) and of English (1586). Second, we find, next to or subsequent to fumbling first efforts, early seventeenth-century masterpieces, still un- surpassed, of grammatical description and lexicographic exploration. Examples include Bertonio (1603a, b) on Aymara, Valdivia (1606) on Mapuche and Gonz´alez Holgu´ın (1607) on Quechua. An adequate assessment of their intellectual background and insights into the organisation of grammar is still lacking, even though a number of studies are filling the gap (Su´arez Roca 1992; Troiani 1995; Zimmermann 1997; Dedenbach-Salazar 1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages 17

S´aenz and Crickmay 1999; Nowak 1999; Zwartjes 2000). The work of Herv´as (Herv´as y Panduro 1784, 1800–5) reflects the detailed knowledge which Jesuits and missionaries of other congregations had in the eighteenth century of the linguistic situation in South America. We will illustrate the evolution of the grammatical tradition by using the example of the treatment of Quechua relative clauses. Quechua relative clauses are generally formed with nominalising particles. When the subject is relativised, -q is used (examples are given from the Cuzco variety):

(1) kay-man hamu-q runa ruwa-nqa this-AL come-AG man do-3S.F ‘The man who comes here will do it.’

The relative clause precedes the antecedent, and the relativised element is generally not expressed in the clause itself; cf. Weber (1983, 1989), Cole et al. (1982), Lefebvre and Muysken (1982, 1988). In the Central Peruvian varieties the relative clause generally follows the antecedent; if it precedes the antecedent, it is often interpreted generically. When a non-subject is relativised, a different nominalising particle, such as -sqa,is used:

(2) qaynunˇcaw riku-sqa-yki runa ruwa-nqa-n yesterday see-SN-2S man do-3S.F-AF ‘The man you saw yesterday will do it.’

The grammars by Santo Tom´as (1560a) and Gonz´alez Holgu´ın (1607) illustrate the early tradition. The unfamiliar features of Quechua relative clauses, such as the subject/non-subject distinction, their position and the absence of tense marking, posed a considerable challenge for Spanish priests. Santo Tom´as (1560a) does not discuss nom- inalising particles in relation with relative clauses. Rather, he introduces a periphrastic construction in his fifteenth chapter (‘Of relatives’), as in (3) (his spelling):

(3) Pedro pori-rca, pay-pas, o chay-pas, o quiquin-pas, micu-rca Pedro walk-PA.3S he-AD or that-AD or self-AD eat-PA.3S ‘Pedro walked, the same ate.’ (Pedro anduvo, el cual comi´o.)

This coordinate construction occurs in Quechua, but it is not the most common way to form a relative. Gonz´alez Holgu´ın’s (1607) grammar constitutes a considerable improvement. It is noted that the primary way of forming relative clauses is with a participle and without a relative pronoun, as in (1), but then Gonz´alez Holguin goes on to say that a clearer and more elegant way (oraci´on muy clara y elegante)exists to express the same meaning, as 18 1 Introduction in (4), involving the question word pi ‘who’, which again recalls the European models (original spelling):

(4) Dios-pa gracia-n-pac pi- camari-cu-n, o pi-pas camari-cu-n chay-ca usachi-cu-nca-tac-mi God-G grace-3P-B who-DU prepare-RF-3S or who-AD prepare-RF-3S that-TO attain-RF-3S.F-EM-AF ‘Whoever prepares himself for God’s grace, that person will certainly attain it.’

Gonz´alez Holgu´ın also mentions a third way of forming relatives, corresponding to Santo Tom´as’s example (3). An admirably detailed and generally faithful account of the language is coupled with Jesuit certainty and missionary zeal, and with a desire to cultivate the language (somewhat along the lines of Latin). This cultivation of Quechua was part of Spanish colonial policy (see chapters 3 and 7). University chairs were established for Quechua and Aymara at the University of San Marcos in , for Quechua in Quito and for Muisca in Santaf´edeBogot´a. Half a century later we find the first grammar of Quechua in which different varieties are explicitly treated (Torres Rubio 1619), and this coincides with the beginning of the comparative tradition in Andean language studies, which will be the subject of the final sections of this chapter.

1.5.2 The nineteenth century The opening up of Latin America to other European nations after independence was accompanied by a new type of scholar dedicated to the languages of the Andes. Wilhelm von Humboldt had already paid attention to languages such as Quechua, basing himself on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century sources (1836, 1971). He saw the Quechua relative clauses in an evolutionary perspective, in a fashion typical of nineteenth-century historicist thought. The nominalised participles, as in (1) and (2), reflect an early, more primitive phase in Quechua language and culture; the relative clauses involving question words as in (4) correspond to the higher attainments of Inca civilisation. The same tendency to view Andean culture patterns in terms of the Great Civilisations is found in Ernst Middendorf, a curious but highly impressive figure who arrived in Peru as a physician in 1855, twenty-five years old. He spent a total of twenty-five years in the country, in three extended periods, first as a physician in Lima and then as a hacendado, a landowner, in the Cuzco region. Middendorf combined the edition of surviving texts in a number of Andean languages with actual fieldwork. In his Quechua grammar (1890a, 1970) the relatives formed through coordination, (3), and those formed with a 1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages 19 question word, (4), move to the second plan. The crucial subject (1)/non-subject (2) distinction is stated clearly for the first time. For the first time as well we find an explicit discussion of possible Spanish influence on the Andean languages: are relative clauses formed with a question word the result of Spanish grammatical influence? Middendorf considers the question unanswerable, and indeed the issue is highly complex (see, for instance, Lefebvre 1984; Appel and Muysken 1987: 161), since already in the earliest Quechua sources we find a special type of correlative formed with question words, but no ordinary relative clauses formed this way.

1.5.3 Contemporary Andean linguistics Particularly after the Second World War, the study of Andean languages underwent a new upsurge, stimulated by linguists from the United States and Europe, both secular and evangelist. The activities of the early missionary grammarians have received a modern continuation in the work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL; in Spanish: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano, ILV),whose members study the native Indian languages for purposes of evangelisation. SIL members have been active in most South American countries. Two typical examples of post-Second World War descriptive linguistics are Yokoyama (1951) and Levinsohn (1976). In contrast with the notionally based grammars of tra- ditional and nineteenth-century linguists, these scholars focus on formal patterns and resemblances. Yokoyama discusses relative clauses in Quechua in terms of their con- stituent morphemes, going through some of the different uses of a suffix such as -sqa, before coming up with some examples of a relative clause. Levinsohn (1976), working in the framework of tagmemics, sets up numerical for- mulas for different verb and suffix combinations. We get examples such as (5a), which can be glossed as (5b):

(5) a. Vb 1331.1 – H:nighua b. ni-g-wa say-AG-C ‘with the one who says’

While the formula in (5a) may have made it possible for the author to describe the lan- guage economically and consistently, for outsiders it is difficult to gain much information from it without a lot of puzzle work. Work in more contemporary grammatical frame- works such as Lefebvre and Muysken’s (1988) analysis, couched in the Government and Binding model, while providing more examples, similarly has proven little more accessible. 20 1 Introduction

In work done by scholars from the Andean countries often a more tradition-based, practical perspective is adopted.

1.6 Sources for the study of the languages of the Andes Linguistic fieldwork is, of course, the principal source of information concerning the languages presently spoken. Cases where this type of research is particularly urgent are numerous. Notwithstanding its essential importance, field research cannot answer all the questions relevant to the past and present state of the South American languages. Manuscripts with word lists, travel accounts and recordings in public archives or libraries, or in private possession, may provide data concerning extinct languages and earlier stages of living languages. As we have said before, early Spanish grammarians contributed substantially to our knowledge of native American languages, and some of them played a role in efforts towards the standardisation of the Quechua language to suit its use as an instrument of evangelisation. Among these was the team that translated the Doctrina Christiana and the into Quechua following the Third Lima Council of 1583. They designed a unified, phonologically simple version of Quechua in which the regional differences were to some extent attenuated (Cerr´on-Palomino 1987b: 84–90). Others, such as Bertonio and Gonz´alez Holgu´ın, wrote grammars and dictionaries (of Aymara and Cuzco Quechua, respectively) considered among the classics of renaissance . How- ever, they too focused their attention mainly upon those languages considered useful for purposes of colonisation and evangelisation. When unimportant from a numerical point of view, languages were mostly left unrecorded, or the grammars, dictionaries and catechisms dedicated to them remained in single manuscript versions. Many of these subsequently became lost. One manuscript grammar that fortunately has sur- vived is de la Mata (1748), kept in the British Library in London. It is a grammar of the Chol´on language spoken until recently in the Huallaga valley in the Peruvian department of San Mart´ın. However, the previous existence of Barzana’sgrammar (pub- lished in 1590; see Brinton 1891: 170) of the Diaguita or Kak´an language, once spoken in what is now northwestern Argentina and northern Chile, is only known to us from an indirect source. Most unfortunately, there is no grammatical nor lexical information on this language apart from a substantial number of place names and a few terms in local use. Not until shortly before the end of Spanish colonial presence in the Andean region, do we find a renewed interest in local linguistic and cultural conditions. A remarkable figure representing this current, inspired by the European Enlightenment, is Baltasar Jaime Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on, who collected word lists of the native languages still spoken about 1780 in the northern Peruvian coastal and sierra regions (Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on 1985). Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on stood at the beginning of a tradition of systematically collecting 1.6 Sources for study 21 data for a variety of Amerindian languages that lasted through the nineteenth and part of the twentieth centuries. The analysis of texts in native languages collected for different purposes, published and unpublished, constitutes another promising field. Much work remains to be done in this area. Several areas in South America, especially in the Andes, exhibit an ancient agricultural tradition rooted in the pre-Columbian and early colonial past but have lost their original languages. In such areas, the study of toponymy can provide information about the linguistic situation as it was in early postconquest times. Such an undertaking can help not only to identify the languages formerly spoken in a particular area, but also to provide an indication of their territorial extension at the time before they became extinct. This type of research has been carried out in recent years in relation to the coast and sierra of northern Peru (Torero 1986, 1989; Adelaar 1988, 1999). As regards the issue of extinction, a precaution is in order. Rediscoveries of languages thought extinct are not unusual. Elderly people may remember a language whereas the younger generation is hardly aware that it ever existed. Chol´on, for instance, was found to be still in use with a few individuals in the Peruvian Huallaga valley (Barbira 1979, cited in Cerr´on-Palomino 1987a), although it is probably extinct now. Van de Kerke (1998, 2000) found a number of speakers of Leco, a language on the slopes of the Andes in Bolivia that had been considered extinct as well. Several surveys dealing with the present-day situation of the native languages in the South American countries have provided data for this book. For Colombia the principal sources are publications of the Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes (CCELA) of the Universidad de Los Andes and Gonz´alez and Rodr´ıguez (2000). For both Colombia and Ecuador a basic source are publications of the Summer Institute of Linguistics. Torero (1974) and Cerr´on Palomino (1987a) are important reference works for Quechua. For Aymara there is Hardman et al. (1988), and Cerr´on Palomino (2000). For Chile the main reference for Mapuche is Salas (1992a). The Argentinian situation is treated in Klein (1985) and Censabella (1999); as far as Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego are concerned, a basic source is Clairis (1985a). With respect to the Amazon area, important compilations have appeared, such as Key (1979), Pottier (1983), Klein and Stark (1985a), Derbyshire and Pullum (1986, 1990, 1991, 1998), Doris L. Payne (1990a), Queixal´os and Renault-Lescure (2000) and Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000). Loukotka (1968), Tovar and Larrucea de Tovar (1984), Migliazza and Campbell (1988), Campbell (1997) and Fabre (1998) provide the most complete recent bibliographical data. These books give a fairly complete listing of South America’snative languages, accompanied by remarks concerning existing classificatory proposals. Their aim is not to contribute a reasoned classification in itself. The Atlas of the World’s Languages (Moseley and Asher 1994), with a contribution by Kaufman, provides additional information. 22 1 Introduction

1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages South America has rightly been called ‘the least known continent’ (Lyon 1974). This statement holds true, in particular, when applied to the genetic relationships of the native languages of its western half. Much remains to be done before a comprehensive classification can be established of the numerous native languages spoken, or once spoken, in the Andes and in the pre-Andean lowlands. Genetically isolated languages and small language families predominate in the area. Not the number of languages, but rather the number of irreducible genetic units constitutes its most striking feature. The resulting impression of extreme linguistic diversity is partly due to insufficient documentation, but in cases where good data are available the situation seems to be no less complex. The linguistic situation in the Andes is comparable in many ways to that in other parts of the , except for the circumstance that maybe more languages became extinct here during the last five centuries than anywhere else on the continent. In a majority of cases, such languages have remained undocumented. Their extinction implies the loss of just as many potential genetic links between the languages still in use. Consequently, some of the best-known languages of the Andean region, such as Araucanian or Mochica, do not form part of any genetic grouping that could meet with the consensus of linguistic scholarship. The same holds true for ‘shallow’ genetic units such as Quechua, a conglomerate of closely related dialects, and Aymaran (also known as Aru or Jaqi), the language family that includes Aymara as its most important representative. The existence in South America of a number of large genetic groupings including many widely scattered individual languages has been known for a long time. They in- clude the Arawakan, Cariban, Chibchan and Tupi linguistic stocks. All four of them are represented in the Andes, in the pre-Andean lowlands or in both. However, with the exception of Chibchan in the northern Andes, they all occupy a predominant place elsewhere in South America. There have been several attempts to link linguistic isolates of the eastern Andean slopes to one of the larger stocks just mentioned, but in most cases without lasting success. The genetic status of several languages that were once tenta- tively classified as Arawakan or Chibchan will have to be reconsidered. The Amuesha language of the central Peruvian forest slopes constitutes a remarkable exception to this. Its supposed membership of the Arawakan family was long considered controversial, but its close genetic relationship with other Arawakan languages of the Pre-Andine subgroup has now become established beyond reasonable doubt (Wise 1976). Like in North America, the diversity of languages seems to have been the greatest along the mountainous spine on the Pacific side of the continent, which may also have constituted the scene of the earliest wave of migrations. Early colonial observers, such as Bibar (1558), Cieza de Le´on (1553), Cobo (1653) and Sim´on ([1626] 1882–1892, II: 116, 284; cited in P´erez de Barradas 1955: 17–19) speak of an amazing variety 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 23 of languages in what is now Colombia, Peru and northern Chile. It is often not clear, however, whether the languages referred to were actually different languages or merely local varieties of more widespread languages. When Sim´on, for instance, speaks of the numerous languages used in the highlands surrounding Santaf´edeBogot´a and in New Granada (present-day Colombia), he may have been referring to dialects of the prevailing Muisca and Duit languages with the possible inclusion of some unrelated neighbouring idiomatic groups. On the other hand, the linguistic variety in the northern Peruvian bishopric of Trujillo observed by Garcilaso de la Vega (Royal Commentaries of the Incas, 1609, Book VII, chapter 3) turned out to be quite real. Except for Mochica, these languages remained virtually without record throughout the colonial period and hardly received any attention until their extinction at a relatively recent date. The cultural and political developments that took place in the Andes have favoured the spread of a few languages, i.e. Quechua, Aymara and Araucanian, at the cost of scores of local languages originally present in the area. Their expansion was initiated before the establishment of the Inca empire and the European invasion. In quite a few cases, the local languages did not disappear before the end of the colonial period. A few of them remained vital well into the twentieth century. In addition to the expansion of the major native languages, the rapid spread of Spanish also contributed to further reducing the complexity of the linguistic situation in the Andes. Spanish, for instance, has directly replaced Mochica and several other languages on the northern Peruvian coast as well as in its mountainous hinterland. The disappearance without record of so many potential relatives has doubtlessly con- tributed to the apparent genetic isolation of the languages still spoken. Tenacious efforts to relate some of the surviving languages of the area to each other, rather than con- sider them within the framework of more comprehensive genetic constructs, may have contributed to further obscuring the situation. This holds true, in particular, for the two Indian languages most widely spoken in the Andes, Quechua and Aymara. After centuries of increasing uniformisation, considerable language diversity, as may once have existed everywhere in the Andes, is still found nowadays on the eastern slopes along the upper reaches of the Amazonian rivers. Lowland Bolivia and eastern Ecuador, as well as the Colombian and Peruvian Amazonian regions adjacent to Ecuador, are typical areas in this respect.

1.7.1 History of classificatory efforts Opinions about the origin of the South American Indians and their languages date back to the early years of European presence on the continent. If we leave aside the initial postdiscovery belief that America was part of Asia, Acosta in his Historia natural y moral de las Indias (Natural and Moral History of the Indies; 1590, Book I, chapters 20–4) was probably the first to intuitively sense the way in which the ancestors of America’s Indian 24 1 Introduction population had entered the New World in times long gone. He assumed that they came mainly over land, crossing estuaries whenever necessary, in small bands and without the intention of peopling a new continent. Acosta also indicated the areas where this could have taken place: in the Arctic regions, where the boundaries of the Old and New World had not yet been discovered by his contemporaries. It was precisely the diversity of nations and languages found throughout the Americas that incited Acosta to reject prevalent theories about shipwrecks and maritime expeditions organised by historically known peoples. Quite correctly, he predicted that such diversity must have taken a long time to develop. In the linguistic domain, Cobo in his Historia del Nuevo Mundo (History of the New World; 1653, Book XI, chapter 10) assigned a common origin to Quechua and Aymara, the two predominant languages in the Inca empire, on account of their being remarkably similar (cf. Mannheim 1985b, 1991). He compared their relationship to that of Spanish and Italian, both descendants from Latin. By doing so, Cobo underestimated the power of long-term contacts between two languages sharing a common geographic and cultural space, a fact of which he was well aware nevertheless. As he posited the genetic unity of Quechua and Aymara, Cobo also laid the foundations for a debate bound to continue until the present. In the eighteenth century, as a result of expanding missionary activity, the awareness grew that the languages of many South American ethnic groups could be reduced to a few comprehensive genetic units. Missionaries were well informed about the existence of a multitude of tribes speaking different languages in the South American lowlands. Among them, the Italian Gilij (1780–4) drew the contours of several genetic groupings of lasting validity, including Arawakan (still referred to as Maipuran at that time) and Cariban (Hoff 1968). Another representative of the church, the abbot Herv´as (1784, 1800–5), published a substantial amount of data, collected from, among others, Jesuit missionaries residing in Europe after their expulsion from the Spanish American domains in 1767. When pointing out the fact that the Omagua of the Upper Amazon valley and the Guaran´ıofthe Paraguayan missions spoke closely related languages, despite geographic separation and different environments, Herv´as showed himself to be aware of the existence of a Tupi–Guaran´ı linguistic family. Herv´as refers to information from Gilij, among others, when assigning a number of languages to the Maipuran or Arawakan family. Among them is the language of the of the Colombian llanos ‘plains’, of whose good disposition towards Spanish rule and religion Herv´as speaks highly. On the other hand, his concept of the existence of a Cariban language family seemed to be partly inspired by the idea that the Caribs did not easily submit to Spanish colonial domination. Arawakan nations who resisted colonisation efforts were classified as Cariban in company with a number of unsubjugated North American tribes. Herv´as held an interesting concept of language families. If several languages appeared to be 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 25 related, one of them was assigned the status of lengua matriz (‘mother language’ or ‘principal language’), from which the others, by extension, were derived. This approach must be viewed in relation to the necessity felt at that time to select a limited number of languages for the purpose of evangelisation carried out among a much larger number of linguistic groups. There is a definite contrast between the amount of information provided by Herv´as concerning the Andes and the Pacific coast on one hand and the Amazonian lowlands on the other. The latter is remarkably accurate and full of detail; the former exhibits many lacunae, particularly in the sphere of the minor languages spoken within the limits of the former Inca empire. As it appears, the availability of Quechua as a vehicle used for evangelising purposes made these languages less interesting in the opinion of the missionaries and information concerning them was not passed on systematically. It may explain why languages such as Culli, Sechura and Tall´an, spoken until the nineteenth century in the northern Peruvian coastal plains and highlands, and the Pre- of highland Ecuador received almost no attention before they eventually became extinct. The nineteenth century marks a renewed interest in native American linguistics and ethnography. In the southern half of the Andean region, including the adjacent lowlands, the French traveller and natural scientist d’Orbigny recorded word lists and ethnographic information on many Indian groups (d’Orbigny 1839). His information on the lowland Bolivian tribes brought together in the Chiquitos and Moxos missions is particularly valuable. D’Orbigny’s classification of Indian nations is still primarily based on ethno- graphic and geographic rather than on linguistic considerations, however. Efforts towards a genetically based classification of the South American languages gained importance during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Brinton published The American Race (1891), a survey of the native American peoples with a strong emphasis on linguistic classification. Almost simultaneously, Uhle (1890) proposed the existence of a Chibchan family, and Middendorf (1890–2) published his monumental work on the indigenous , in which he also discusses the nature of the relationship between Quechua and Aymara. Henceforth, two types of contributions must be distinguished, those aiming at overall classifications meant to include all documented South American languages, or, at the least, as many of them as possible, and those aiming at establishing genetic links between specific languages or language families. Both activities have been going on, often without much mutual feedback. Proposals concerning genetic relations involving native Andean languages have been numerous and often contradictory. Here they will be dealt with very selectively. We will first enumerate and discuss some of the proposed classifications. Propos- als concerning individual languages or language families will be treated subsequently. 26 1 Introduction

Classifications are termed conservative if their authors refrain from including genetic units of which the internal cohesion is still open to doubt. Virtually no classifications are entirely consistent in this respect. Two classifications stand at the conservative end of the scale, Loukotka (1968), with 117 independent units for all of South America and the Caribbean islands, and Kaufman (1990), with 118. At the other end we find Greenberg (1987) with one comprehensive Amerind phylum thought to include all the native lan- guages of South and , the Caribbean and most of North America as well. Conservative classifications do not necessarily imply a rejection of possible com- prehensive groupings, as their authors explicitly indicate, but they are meant to provide a list of firmly established ‘shallow’ language families, which can be used in further rearrangements. One of the earliest overall classifications of the South American languages, apart from Brinton’s, is that of Chamberlain (1913). It is a conservative classification containing 84 groups, most of which are represented in the Andes and the eastern foothills. The lower number of units in relation to, for instance, Loukotka’s classification is due to the fact that many languages and small families were still absent from Chamberlain’s account. In Rivet’s classification of the South American and Caribbean languages, which ap- peared in Meillet and Cohen’s well-known handbook Les langues du monde (1924), some reductions in the number of groups can be observed (to a total of 77; expanded to 108 in the revised edition of 1952). These reductions reflect Rivet’s comparative views and concern, in particular, the Chibchan language family, to which several groups previ- ously thought independent had been added. Languages thus classified as Chibchan were Andaqu´ı, the Barbacoan languages (Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer), the Coconucan languages (including Guambiano), the Paniquitan languages (including P´aez), Cof´an and Cuna. Rivet also proposed a subgroup consisting of Barbacoan, Cuna and the Costa Rican groups Guatuso and Talamancan (the latter comprising all Costa Rican languages except Guatuso). Further innovations of Rivet’s classification concern the inclusion of the Tacanan family of northern Bolivia within Arawakan and the inclusion of Uruan and Puquina (wrongly considered a unit) within that same family. Of these proposals only the classification of Cuna as a member of the Chibchan family became generally accepted. Mason’s contribution to the Handbook of South American Indians (1950) contains an extensive and very useful discussion of previous classificatory efforts. It also brings a further reduction of the number of language families. Proposals to establish new groupings are partly taken from other authors. For the Chibchan family and its possible expansions (classified as Chibchan, probably Chibchan, or doubtful), Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940–5) is the main source, although the latter’s proposals are presented with much re- serve. Following up suggestions of Rivet, Harrington (1944) and Jij´on y Caama˜no, Mason groups the Huitotoan, Boran and Zaparoan languages of the Colombian, Ecuadorean and northern Peruvian lowlands with Tupi–Guaran´ı. Two innovations in Mason’s 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 27 classification are the terms Kechumaran and Ataguitan, the former referring to a ge- netic grouping consisting of Quechua and Aymara and the latter bringing together the Atacame˜no, Diaguita and Humahuaca languages of northern Argentina and northern Chile. Mason presents the proposed Ataguitan grouping with much hesitation. It has never gained much support, in particular, because the Diaguita and Humahuaca groups are virtually undocumented. In contrast, Mason considers Kechumaran ‘yet unproved but highly probable’ (again referring to Jij´on y Caama˜no’swork). Subsequently, the term has become widely used in the alternative spelling Quechumaran.Itisremarkable that Mason explicity excludes the Cauqui or Jaqaru language from this grouping, although Cauqui was already thought (and is now known) to be closely related to Aymara. McQuown’s classification (1955) follows Mason’s in several respects, including the acceptance of the Ataguitan and Quechumaran groupings, which he considers less con- vincing than Mason does (1955: 562), the unjustified exclusion of Cauqui and the ex- panded Tupi–Guaran´ı. On the other hand, it is a conservative classification since it allows for no less than 629 unclassified languages in South America in addition to 12 large fam- ilies and 38 minor families. Characteristic of McQuown’s contribution is an attempt to enumerate and locate on maps all the native Latin American languages ever mentioned in literature (1820 for all Latin America). Although doubtlessly useful, McQuown’s lan- guage list contains many items which are geographic denominations rather than language names. This is the case, in particular, of the Quechua-dominated middle Andean region, where names of towns, provinces and valleys figure as just as many separate languages. This procedure apparently rests on the assumption that Quechua was introduced at a recent stage in most places where it is now spoken (or known to have been spoken), and that in each case a different language must underlie it. The linguistic parcelling that results from it is merely hypothetical and is also accessory to a spectacular increase in the number of unclassified languages. In 1956 Greenberg presents a classification which is distinguished from the previous ones by its greater sophistication and classificatory explicitness (Greenberg 1960a). In it few South American languages, however poorly documented, remain unaccounted for. Although it was published without a factual justification of the groupings proposed, it became widely known after its appearance in the 1958 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica,inSteward and Faron (1959) and in Current Anthropology (Greenberg 1960b). Much later work on individual South American native languages begins with a statement locating the language at issue in Greenberg’s classification. It was also used and given credit in the development of anthropological and archaeological theory concerning past migrations; see, for instance, Lathrap (1970: 83) and Meggers (1979). Greenberg’s initial classification was superseded by a rather revolutionary proposal advanced in his book Language in the Americas (Greenberg 1987). It will be the subject of a separate section (1.7.4). Since the influence of Greenberg’s initial classification has been particularly great, the essentials of it regarding the Andean region are reproduced 28 1 Introduction

Table 1.3 Greenberg’s (1956) classification of the languages of the Andes

 Yur umangui

- A. Chibchan proper Chibcha–Duit,Tunebo group, Aruaco group, Cuna–Cueva. B. Paezan Choco, Cuaiquer, Andaki, Paez–Coconuco, Colorado–Cayapa, Jirajira, Yunca (=Chim´u, Mochica), Atacameno (=Kunza), Itonama. –– A. Macro-Ge 1. Ge: Caingang, Chiquita, Guato. 2. Bororo. B. Macro-Panoan Tacana–Pano, Moseten, Mataco, Lule, Vilela, Mascoy, Charrua, Guaycuru-Opaie. [C. not applicable] D. E. Macro-Carib Carib, Peban (=Yaguan), Witotoan. – A. Andean A 1. Ona, Yahgan (=Yamana), Alakuluf (=Kawesqar), Tehuelche, Puelche (=Gennaken), Araucanian (=Mapuche). 2. Quechua, Aymara. 3. Zaparoan (including Omurano, Sabela), Cahuapana. 4. Leco, Sec, Culle, Xibito–Cholon, Catacao, Colan. 5. Simacu (=Itucale, ). B. Andean B Jibaro-Kandoshi, Esmeralda, Cofan, Yaruro. C. Macro-Tucanoan 1. Tucano (including Auixira), , Muniche, Yuri, Canichana, Mobima. 2. Puinave. D. Equatorial (including Chapacura–Uanhaman, Chamicuro, Apolista, Amuesha, Araua, Uru), Tupi, Timote, Zamuco, Guahibo–Pamigua, Saliban, Otomaco–Taparita, Mocoa (=Kams´a, Sibundoy), Tuyuneri (=Toyeri, Harakmbut), Yurucare, Cayuvava. in table 1.3. For this classification see also Key (1979) with some minor orthographic variation. Occasionally, alternative language names are added in parentheses and pre- ceded by an equation sign in order to facilitate with other classifications. There are minor differences between the versions in circulation of Greenberg’sclassifi- cation. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Current Anthropology versions, Greenberg’s classification is mapped onto McQuown’s (1955) language list; Simacu (better known as Itucale or Urarina) is classified as Macro-Tucanoan, not Andean; Atacame˜no (also known as Kunza) is left out (possibly as a result of a confusion with the extinct Ecuadorian language called Atacame or Esmeralde˜no); the subdivisions are more detailed and ex- plicit and their denominations (phylum, stock, family, subfamily) more differentiated. In the Steward and Faron version, Simacu is not mentioned. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 29

Table 1.4 The four networks proposed by Swadesh (1959, 1962)

-: Chibchan (in its limited sense, see below, but including Timote) and Tucanoan; most languages of Meso-America. -: Cariban (including Jirajaran), Zaparoan (including Yaguan), Arawa, Kaingangan (including Ge), Guamo and Guat´o; many language groups of . -: Campan (including part of the Arawakan family: Campa, , Chamicuro, Amuesha, and additionally Chirino), Arawakan, Guahiboan, Cams´a, Chapacuran, Saliban, Yur´ıan (including Ticuna and Cof´an), Mobima, Tup´ı, Bororoan (including Chiquitano), Sec, Lecoan (including Choc´o) and Mochica; several language groups of Brazil, Venezuela and Florida (Timucua). -: Quechuan (including Aymara, Cauqui and Uru–Chipaya), Paezan (including the Barbacoan and Coconucan languages, Andaqu´ı, Atacame˜no and the Brazilian Kapishana and Mashub´ı), Cullian (including Hibito–Chol´on), Itonama, Cayuvavan (including Esmeralda), Pano–Tacanan, Sonchon (which includes Moset´en, Chon and Hongote), Yuracare, Macuan (which includes Mac´u–Puinave, Het, Charr´uan, Ahuishiri, Zamucoan, Yurumangu´ı, Canichana, the Brazilian Ot´ı, Ofai´e–Xavante and Catuquina, and the Venezuelan Macu), Muran (which includes Jivaroan–Cahuapanan, Boran and Huitotoan, along with the Brazilian Matanau´ı and Mura–Pirah´a), Puelche (Gennaken), Huarpean, Urarina, Guaicuruan, Mapuchean (including Matacoan), Guachian (including Vilela and Guach´ıofMato Grosso, Brazil), Yamanan (including Alacaluf), Lule, Otomaco and Yaruro (Venezuela), Lengua-Mascoy (Paraguay), Trumai and Huari (Brazil). Outside South America: Tarascan (Mexico) and Zuni (New Mexico, USA).

Swadesh’s classification (1959, 1962) is to a certain extent comparable with Greenberg’s in that it seeks to account for as many languages as possible. Swadesh sees the differentiation of languages as a geographic continuum. He does not define it exclusively in terms of genetically independent units which are internally structured by chronologically ordered moments of splitting. Instead of the usual tree model, Swadesh opts for a model of interconnected networks designed to cover the whole world, not only the Americas. As in the case of Greenberg’s initial classification, the publication of factual evidence supporting the classification was announced but remained fragmentary. Swadesh’s classification is less well known than Greenberg’s. Nevertheless, some of the surface-level proposals brought forward in it have of late received renewed attention (for instance, the J´ıvaro–Cahuapana connection and the proposed link between Atacame˜no and the Brazilian KanoˆeorKapishana; see Kaufman 1990). Swadesh distinguishes four networks in South America represented in table 1.4. Tiniguan, Omurano and Nambikwara (Brazil) have a status independent from the networks. Some languages are left unclassified for lack of data: Puruh´a, Ca˜nari, Aconipa 30 1 Introduction

(Tabancale), Copall´en, Diaguita, Gorgotoqui, Humahuaca, Munichi, Sabela and Mayna (considered by others to be a group with Omurano). The networks are linked to each other at different points and also to the North American Macro-Hokan network. Loukotka (1968) was published posthumously by Wilbert. It had been preceded by several other classifications, elaborated by the same author, the first of which dates back to 1935. Loukotka’s work is well known among scholars of South American Indian languages because it provides the reader with short word lists of almost every language, whether spoken or extinct, that had been documented before 1960. Although the data presented are frequently inaccurate, the availability in one single work of some basic vocabulary of so many different languages constitutes an invitation to browsing and amateur linguistic comparison. Loukotka divides the South American and Caribbean languages into languages of Paleo-American tribes, languages of Tropical Forest tribes and languages of Andean tribes. This general division, together with its subsequent subdivisions, seems to have a geographic or an anthropological inspiration, rather than a linguistic one. More essential are the 117 genetic units (stocks, small stocks and isolated languages) which Loukotka distinguishes and his endeavour to assign to as many languages as possible a place in the classificatory framework which he develops. Loukotka’sclassification is conservative in the sense that the proposed groupings basically contain languages of which the genetic unity is unquestioned. Unnecessary splitting, such as observed elsewhere in the separa- tion of Aymara and Cauqui (Mason, McQuown) or in that of Puquina and Callahuaya (Kaufman 1990: 44), is successfully avoided. On the other hand, two cases of unjustified grouping occur, both of them concerning the northern Andes (see also Kaufman 1990: 37–8): (1) the inclusion into the Arawakan family of the Guahiboan languages of eastern Colombia; and (2) the inclusion into the Chibchan family of Yaruro, Esmeralde˜no and a substantial number of language groups of Ecuador and southern and eastern Colombia that are not visibly related to it: Betoi, Andaqu´ı, P´aez, Coconuco, Barbacoa and Sibundoy. The assignment of the Misumalpa family of Central America to the Chibchan stock must equally be rejected if indisputable internal genetic cohesion is to be the leading criterion (Constenla Uma˜na 1981). Loukotka’s postulation of two separate isolates in the south of Chile, Alacaluf and Aksan´as, will be discussed in chapter 6. In table 1.5, those of Loukotka’s117 stocks and families relevant to the Andean region are enumerated. We will distinguish three approximate categories: (I) groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast, (II) groups which are predominantly located in the eastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina, and (III) groups which are strongly represented in other areas, but also in the Andes, or in the eastern lowlands as defined above. The original numbering is retained. As can be observed from table 1.5, 75 of Loukotka’s 117 units are represented in the Andes or in the eastern lowlands of the Andean countries. Admittedly, some groups are 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 31

Table 1.5 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Loukotka (1968)

I Linguistic groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast: Y´amana (1), Alacaluf (2), Aksan´as (3), Patagon or Tshon (4), Timote (95), Jirajara (96), Choc´o (97), Idabaez (98), Yurimangui (99),* Sechura (101), Catacao (102), Culli (103), Tabancale (104), Copall´en (105), Chim´u (106), Quechua (107), Aymara (108), Puquina (109), Uro (110), Atacama (111), Mapuche (113), Diaguit (114), Humahuaca (115), Huarpe (117). II Linguistic groups located in the eastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina: Gennaken (5), Chechehet (6), Sanaviron (7), Vilela (9), Chiquito (13), Gorgotoqui (14), (51), (54), Kahuapana (55), Munichi (56), Cholona (57), Mayna (58), Murato (59), Auishiri (60), Itucale (61), J´ıbaro (62), Sabela (63), Z´aparo (64), Cayuvava (71), Mobima (72), Itonama (73), Canichana (74), Tacana (76), Toyeri (77), Yuracare (78), Mosetene (79), Andoque (82), Uitoto (83), Bora (84), Cofan (100), Leco (112), Lule (116). III Linguistic groups partly or mainly represented in other areas: Guaicuru (8), Mataco (10), Lengua (11), Zamuco (12), Charrua (15), Kaing´an (16), Bor´oro (27), Tupi (45), Arawak (46), Otomac (47), Guamo (48), Piaroa (50), Tucuna (53), Chapacura (65), Pano (75), Guat´o (80), Tucano (81), Yuri (85), Mak´u (86), Araw´a (88), Karaib (89), Chibcha (94).

* The original sources refer to this group as Yurumangu´ı, which is also the name of a river in the present-day Colombian department Valle del Cauca. The form Yurimangu´ıisfound in Loukotka (1968) and, as Yurimangi, in Kaufman (1990, 1994). represented very marginally (Arawa, Guat´o, Kaing´an, Yuri). On the other hand, there is an additional enumeration of ‘unclassified or unknown languages’, some of which probably represent separate groups, and, as we saw earlier, the Arawak and Chibcha groups are subject to further splitting. Another relatively conservative classification was carried out by Su´arez, and published in the fifteenth edition (1974) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.Itdistinguishes 82 language groups for all South America. In relation to Loukotka (1968), Su´arez proposes the groupings listed in table 1.6. Apart from these groupings, which apparently meet with Su´arez’s approval, he in- dicates possible additional linkings advanced by others. Of Su´arez’s groupings some are relatively well established, such as Lulean (Balmori 1967; Lozano 1977), and Pano– Tacanan (Key 1968) without its Fuegian–Patagonian extension. Others have been refuted (Choc´o and Cariban; Uru–Chipaya and Mayan, see below) or rest upon extensive bor- rowing (Quechua and Aymara). Kaufman’sclassification of 1990 (see also Kaufman 1994) is a conservative proposal, comparable to Loukotka’s insofar as the number of genetic groups (118 for all South America) is concerned. According to the author, every group ‘is either obvious on inspection or has been demonstrated by standard procedures’ (Kaufman 1990: 37). 32 1 Introduction

Table 1.6 Groupings suggested by Su´arez (1974) of language families and isolates included in Loukotka (1968)

Su´arez (1974) Loukotka (1968)

Alacalufan Aksan´as, Alacaluf Bora–Huitotoan Bora, Uitoto Cariban Choc´o, Karaib Guaycur´u–Charruan Charrua, Guaicuru Jebero–Jivaroan J´ıbaro, Kahuapana Lulean Lule, Vilela Macro-Chibchan Chibcha, Itonama, Warao (Venezuela), Yanoama (Brazil, Venezuela) Macro-Ge Bor´oro, Kaing´an and a number of Brazilian groups Macro-Mayan Uro and the (Meso-America) Macro–Pano-Tacanan Mosetene, Pano, Patagon/Tshon, Tacana, Yuracare Quechumaran Aymara, Quechua

Suggestions for further grouping are accompanied by the qualifications ‘good’, ‘good?’, ‘promising’, ‘probable’ or ‘maybe’. Considering the greater methodological rigidity observed by Kaufman, one may wonder why the number of groups in his classification are not substantially higher. This is mainly because a number of poorly documented extinct languages and language groups have not been included. In table 1.7 we have arranged the genetic groups of Kaufman’sclassification insofar as they concern the Andean region by using the same geographic distinctions as observed in relation to Loukotka’s work above. As can be deduced from tables 1.5 and 1.7, the extinct languages and language groups figuring in Loukotka’s classification, but not included in Kaufman’s, are Idabaez in Colombia, Tabancale and Copall´en in northern Peru and four Argentinian groups, Diaguit, Humahuaca, Chechehet and Sanaviron because they are undocumented. Kaufman observes that maybe Gorgotoqui should be excluded as well for the same reason.12 The differences between the two classifications reside in the treatment of the Chibchan family (L94) (Kaufman has six units where Loukotka has one), the Arawakan family (L46) (Kaufman keeps Guahibo apart from Arawakan), Puquina (L109) (Kaufman has two units where Loukotka has one), the Je family (K74) (Kaufman has one unit where Loukotka has two), and Kaw´eskar (K58) (Kaufman has one unit where Loukotka has two). Otherwise, apart from a minor readjustment concerning the demar- cation between Arawakan and Har´akmbut/Toyeri (K18, L77), the two classifications are identical insofar as the Andean region is concerned.

12 The Gorgotoqui people are well attested historically, and so is the existence of a grammar of the language written by a father Ru´ız (Gonzales de Barc´ıa 1737–8). Unfortunately, no one has been able to locate this grammar in recent years. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 33

Table 1.7 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Kaufman (1990) with their correlates in Loukotka (1968)*

I Linguistic groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast: Yurimangi (1, L99 Yurimangui), Tim´otean (2, L95 Timote), Hirah´aran (3, L96 Jirajara), Chok´o (4, L97 Choc´o), P´aesan (6, L94 Chibcha: Andaqu´ı/ Paez/ Coconuco), Barbak´oan (7, L94 Chibcha: Barb´acoa), Ezmeralda (27, L94 Chibcha: Esmeralda), Chim´uan (41, L106 Chim´u), Kulyi (43, L103 Culli), Sechura (44, L101), Katak´aoan (45, L102 Catacao), Kechua (47, L107 Quechua), Haki (48, L108 Aymara), Chipaya (49, L110 Uro), Pukina (50, L109 Puquina: Puquina), Kolyawaya (51, L109 Puquina: Callahuaya), Chon (56, L4 Patagon or Tshon), Y´amana (57, L1), Kaw´eskar (58, L2+L3 Alacaluf, Aksan´as), Mapudungu (59, L113 Mapuche), Warpe (61, L117 Huarpe), Kunsa (99, L111 Atacama). II Linguistic groups located in the eastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina: Betoi (5, L94 Chibcha: Betoi), Kams´a (10, L94 Chibcha: Sebondoy), Tin´ıwan (11, L51 Tinigua), Wah´ıvoan (15, L46 Arawak: Guahibo), Har´akmbut (18, L46+L77 Arawak: Mashco, Toyeri), Tekiraka (21, L60 Auishiri), Kanichana (22, L74 Canichana), Munichi (26, L56), Kof´an (29, L100 Cof´an), Kandoshi (30, L59 Murato), H´ıvaro (31, L62 J´ıbaro), Kawap´anan (32, L55 Kahuapana), S´aparoan (33, L64 Z´aparo), Y´awan (34, L54 Yagua), Omurano (35, L58 Mayna), Sabela (36, L63), Urarina (37, L61 Itucale), B´oran (38, L84 Bora), Wit´otoan (39, L83 Uitoto), Andoke (40, L82 Andoque), Chol´onan (42, L57 Cholona), Leko (46, L112 Leco), Yurakare (52, L78 Yuracare), Tak´anan (54, L76 Tacana), Moset´en (55, L79 Mosetene), Puelche (60, L5 Gennaken), Lule (65, L116), Vilela (66, L9), Gorgotoki (69, L14 Gorgotoqui), Chikitano (70, L13 Chiquito), Itonama (98, L73), Movima (107, L72 Mobima), Kayuvava (108, L71 Cayuvava). III Linguistic groups partly or mainly represented in other areas: Ch´ıbchan (8, L94 Chibcha), Otom´akoan (12, L47 Otomac), Wamo (13, L48 Guamo), Chapak´uran (14, L65 Chapacura), Maip´urean (16, L46 Arawak), Araw´an (17, L88 Arawa), Puin´avean (19, L86 Mak´u), Tuk´anoan (23, L81 Tucano), Tikuna (24, L53 Tucuna), Jur´ı (25, L85 Yuri), Jaruro (28, L94 Chibcha: Yaruro), P´anoan (53, L75 Pano), Mat´akoan (62, L10 Mataco), Waikur´uan (63, L8 Guaicuru), Charr´uan (64, L15 Charrua), Mask´oian (67, L11 Lengua), Sam´ukoan (68, L12 Zamuco), Bor´oroan (71, L27 Bor´oro), Je (74, L16+L24, Kaing´an, Ge), Guat´o (82, L80), Tup´ıan (109, L45 Tupi), K´ariban (110, L89 Karaib), S´alivan (114, L50 Piaroa).

* Along with the group numbers introduced by Kaufman, the numbers of Loukotka’s classifi- cation are given in the formula Lx, followed by his group or language names when different from those used by Kaufman. In the main text, Kaufman’s group numbers are referred to as Kx.

Kaufman suggests that further grouping may be possible in the following cases (the spelling is Kaufman’s):P´aesan (K6) and Barbak´oan (K7); Chibchan (K8) and Misumalpa (a Central American group); Wamo (K13) and Chapak´uran (K14); Tikuna (K24) and Jur´ı (K25); Ezmeralda (K27) and Jaruro (K28); H´ıvaro (K31) and Kawap´anan (K32); S´aparoan (K33) and Y´awan (K34); B´oran (K38), Wit´otoan (K39) and Andoke (K40); Sechura (K44) and Katak´aoan (K45); Kechua (K47) and Haki (K48); Pukina (K50) and Kolyawaya (K51); P´anoan (K53) and Tak´anan (K54); Moset´en (K55) and Chon (K56); 34 1 Introduction

Lule (K65) and Vilela (K66); Chikitano (K70), Bor´oroan (K71), Je (K74), Guat´o (K82) and nine other Brazilian groups; Kunsa (K99) and Kapishan´a. In connection with other classifications, we commented en passant upon some of these suggested groupings (Lule and Vilela, Panoan and Tacanan, Chibchan and Misumalpa, Aymara and Quechua). Arguments for a comprehensive Macro-Ge grouping including Ge, Guat´o and Bororoan, as well as several other language groups, can be found in Davis (1968) and in Rodrigues (1986, 1999), but do not, as yet, extend to Chiquitano. The proposal of a special genetic relationship between Esmeralda and Yaruro was ad- vanced by Seler (1902); see section 2.19. Loukotka located them in the same subgroup of Chibchan. Doris Payne (1984) has presented evidence for a genetic relationship of Yaguan (K34) and Zaparoan (K33). Callahuaya (Kaufman’s Kolyawaya) is a profes- sional jargon composed of roots taken from a Puquina dialect and Quechua endings (see section 3.5). The unity of the extinct Sechura and the equally extinct Tall´an languages of the area (K45 Katak´aoan) was proposed by Rivet (1949) but the evidence for it considered inconclusive by Torero (Torero 1986); see section 3.9.2. The possibility of a genetic relationship between the Boran and Huitotoan languages, on one hand, and Andoque, on the other, was considered unconvincing by a leading expert on this lan- guage (Landaburu 1979). As for the proposed special relationship between the Kunza or Atacame˜no language and the Brazilian KanoˆeorKapishana, the geographic and cultural barriers seem formidable, and there would need to be a very strong linguistic case to support it (see also section 3.7).

1.7.2 Quechuan and Aymaran, Quechumaran The two dominant language groups of the central Andes, Quechuan and Aymaran, must be viewed as language families rather than as single languages. Traditionally, however, Quechuan is more often referred to as the Quechua language. The internal comparison of Quechuan, a linguistic entity consisting of numerous local varieties, became an issue in the 1960s when Parker (1963) and Torero (1964) published their well- known articles about the Quechua dialect situation (see section 3.2.3). Hardman (1975, 1978a, b) introduced the name Jaqi (‘man’, ‘human being’) for the Aymaran family, which, according to her, has three living members to be treated as separate languages: Aymara, Cauqui and Jaqaru. For a discussion of the terminology and a justification of our use of the term Aymaran see section 3.1. Quechua(n) and Aymara(n) have repeatedly been compared to each other, but rarely to other languages. Harrington (1943) suggested a relationship between Quechua and Hokan; Dum´ezil (1954, 1955) compared some of the Quechua numerals to those of Turkish. Following an unconvincing first attempt by Swadesh (1967), Liedtke collected a list of lexical and grammatical resemblances between Quechua and Tarascan, some 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 35 of which are quite suggestive (Liedtke 1996). No thorough comparative study has been carried out, however. Orr and Longacre (1968) set out to prove Mason’sQuechumaran hypothesis by trying to reconstruct the phoneme system and part of the lexicon of the proto-language un- derlying it. Although they apparently achieved their aim, the lexicon they reconstructed consists almost exclusively of shared vocabulary, which is evidently due to intensive borrowing between the two languages at an early stage of their development. Given the virtually identical form of the shared items, the radically different character of the remainder of the lexicon is left unexplained. The same holds for the grammatical com- ponents of the two language groups, which show quite a few semantic but hardly any formal similarities (Davidson 1977). Notwithstanding the lack of proof, the idea of a Quechumaran genetic unity exclusive of all other languages still has supporters. For an attempt to revive the Quechumaran hypothesis on a more sophisticated basis see Campbell (1995). The relationship between the Quechuan and Aymaran linguistic families is indeed unique. When the effects of loan traffic between individual Quechua dialects and the different languages of the Aymaran family are left aside, a substantial basis of common lexicon remains (about 20 per cent of the root vocabulary in each group), which can be traced back to the proto-languages. The phoneme inventories of the two proto-languages were probably very similar, as most of the existing differences may be explained by later internal developments in each of the two families. The existence of glottalised and aspirated consonants in Aymaran and in a number of Quechua dialects (Cuzco, Puno, , north and ) is generally attributed to diffusion from Aymaran into Quechuan, although its distribution within the latter group is far from predictable (see section 3.2.5). Morphological and lexico-semantic coincidences are highly specific and difficult to ascribe to parallel developments of a typological nature (see chapter 3 for more details). For a systematic inventory and discussion of all the coincidences see also Cerr´on-Palomino (1994a). The obvious similarities that have united Quechuan and Aymaran since the stage of the proto-languages stand in contrast with differences that are equally impressive. The very characteristic phonotac- tics and vowel suppression rules of all Aymaran languages (see section 3.3.4) are not found in Quechuan. The structure of the verbal inflection, personal reference marking in particular, differs considerably between the two language groups, and, of course, a major part of the lexicon and affixes do not show any systematic formal relationship at all. All this leads to the conclusion that Proto-Quechua and Proto-Aymaran were spoken in contiguous areas, if not in the same area, which were probably situated in central Peru, the heartland of the Middle Andean civilisation. The bi-directional loan influence between the two linguistic families was so intense, that possible surviving correspondences of a 36 1 Introduction genetic kind became hard to detect. If the languages were not genetically related – and there is no decisive evidence that they were – at the least one of them must have suffered a profound structural transformation adopting the phonological and morphosyntactic model represented by the other. This scenario presupposes a period of intense interaction and common development prior to the stage of the proto-languages. It may have begun well before the beginning of our era. Although it is risky to venture a statement on such a speculative matter, a variety of Aymaran would be the best candidate for having provided such a model because of the more homogeneous character of Aymaran verbal and nominal inflection in comparison to Quechuan inflection. The remaining languages of the central Andean region do not participate in the same sort of lexical and grammatical entwining that characterises the relationship between Quechuan and Aymaran, although lexical borrowing has occurred. Since these languages have been poorly studied so far, further research may eventually cast additional light on their relationship with either Quechuan, or Aymaran (or both).

1.7.3 Other proposals for individual language families As we anticipated, there have been many proposals of genetic connections between specific groups which were formulated outside the framework of an overall classification. For the earlier period (before 1960), two scholars, Rivet and Jij´on y Caama˜no, deserve to be specially commended for the size of their contribution to South American Indian linguistics, including much classificatory work. Many of their classificatory proposals have been the subject of drastic reconsideration. Therefore, it is not necessary to treat them in detail here, but the amount of data they brought together and their influence have been considerable. Among Rivet’s classificatory contributions we find the proposed connection of Arawakan and Tacanan (see above), the inclusion of Uru and Puquina within the Arawakan family (see also above), a rearrangement of the Chibchan family involving many groups in Ecuador and southern Colombia (see also above), and the association of the isolated Yurumangu´ı language of the Colombian Pacific coast with Sapir’s Hokan phylum (Rivet 1942). Well known was also Rivet’s conviction that the Chon languages (Tehuelche and Ona) of Patagonia were genetically related to languages spoken by the Australian aborigines (Rivet 1925). Rivet’s comparative methods have met with much criticism. In the case of Yurumangu´ı, for instance, he compared the vocabulary of this poorly documented with that of a wide array of North American and of supposed Hokan affiliation. A lexical similarity between Yurumangu´ı and any of these languages would be considered evidence of a genetic relationship. In his monumental El Ecuador Interandino y Occidental antes de la Conquista Espa- nola˜ (Inter-Andean and Western Ecuador before the Spanish Conquest, 1940–5), Jij´on y Caama˜no assigned most languages of northwestern South America to a Macro-Chibchan 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 37 phylum, which, in its turn, would fit into Hokan–Siouan. His Macro-Chibchan was more comprehensive than any of the previous proposals concerning Chibchan and its connections. Jij´on y Caama˜no’s Macro-Chibchan not only included all the languages in Loukotka’sChibcha, but also Timote, Cof´an, Murato (Candoshi), Yurumangu´ı, Mochica (Chim´u), Cholona and the Central American Lenca, Xinca, Jicaque and Subtiaba. By contrast, Tucano and Huitoto–Bora–Z´aparo are listed as separate phyla. Jij´on y Caama˜no’sinterpretation of the comparative method has been much criticised, inter alia, for its acceptance of systematic equations of phonetically unrelated sounds. Constenla Uma˜na (1981) mentions some striking examples of this procedure. Nevertheless, both Rivet and Jij´on y Caama˜no must be credited with having brought to public attention a wealth of data on many extinct and poorly documented languages, which until then had been virtually unknown. Recent investigations of the Chibchan family have tended to reduce the number of languages associated with it. In his thorough phonological reconstruction of Proto- Chibchan, Constenla Uma˜na (1981) found that the Barbacoan, Paezan, Andaqu´ı, Kams´a, Betoi, Jirajaran and Misumalpa languages are not Chibchan. What is left is a family based primarily in Central America and represented in Colombia and Venezuela by the Cundinamarcan Chibchan languages Muisca and Duit, Tunebo, the Arhuacan languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Bar´ı, Chimila and Cuna. In a revised version of his reconstruction, Constenla Uma˜na (1989) proposes a Paya–Chibchan family con- sisting of a Paya branch (represented by the sole Paya language of ) and a Chibchan branch. The Chibchan branch comprises several subgroups. One of them is a Colombian Chibchan group which comprises the Arhuacan, Tunebo and Cundinamarcan Chibchan languages. Cuna is found to belong to a different subgroup with the extinct Dorasquean languages of . Chimila and Bar´ı remain unclassified as to subgroup for lack of data. Several poorly documented languages once spoken in the Colombian department of Antioquia (, Cat´ıo Chibcha) are also classified as Chibchan. The linguistic evidence seems to point to a relatively recent arrival of the Chibchan people from Central America, making it less likely for all proposed South American connec- tions to be correct. The alleged genetic relationship of Chibchan with Warao (in the Venezuelan delta) and with Yanomama (in the Brazilian–Venezuelan border lands; Greenberg 1959, 1960a, b; Migliazza 1978a) has been the object of an investi- gation by Weisshar (1982). Among many other similar proposals, we may mention that of L´evi-Strauss (1948), who suggested a genetic relationship between Chibchan and the Brazilian Nambikwara languages (refuted in Constenla Uma˜na 1981). The reduced Chibchan family, such as proposed by Constenla Uma˜na, is almost the same as that originally outlined by Uhle (1890). The affinities of the different mem- bers of the family thus being reconsidered, many languages previously classified as Chibchan are again left unclassified. There is convincing evidence that the Barbacoan 38 1 Introduction languages Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer are related in a family which also includes the Coconucan languages Guambiano and Totor´o (Constenla Uma˜na 1991; Curnow and Liddicoat 1998). Whether the extinct languages of the northern Ecuadorian highlands and the adjacent highlands in the Colombian department of Nari˜no (Cara, Pasto) also belonged to the same grouping is a question which deserves further investigation (see section 3.9.1). Although Greenberg and Kaufman classify Guambiano as Paezan, the distance between Guambiano and P´aez seems to be greater than that between Guambiano and the Barbacoan languages. The position of P´aez, Andaqu´ı, Kams´a and Betoi requires renewed attention. The Cariban language family, which has it greatest concentration of speakers in the and eastern Venezuela, is represented in the Colombian–Venezuelan border mountains, west of Lake Maracaibo, with the Yukpa or Motilones group. Rivet (1943a) assumed a more generalised presence of Carib-speaking peoples in the Colombian Andes, by assigning the (extinct) , Colima, Panche, Pijao, Pant´agora and Op´on– Carare languages of the Magdalena basin to the same family. He also believed the Chocoan languages of the Colombian Pacific area to be related to Cariban (Rivet 1943b). Durbin and Seijas (1973a, b, 1975) have shown that only the Op´on and Carare languages, located to the northwest of the Cundinamarcan highlands, were demonstrably Cariban. Of the other languages Muzo and Colima may have been Cariban as well. For the three remaining languages, however, the lexical similarity with Cariban is not such that it can provide the assumed relationship with a solid basis (see section 2.11). The alleged connection of Chocoan and Cariban has been superseded by Greenberg’s proposal relat- ing the Chocoan languages to Paezan. For similarities between Chocoan and Barbacoan see section 2.3. Similarly, Constenla and Margery (1991) have published evidence for a relation between Chocoan and Chibchan. Genetic connections have been sought between the Mochica language (also known as Yunga and, erroneously, as Chim´u) and Chibchan (Jij´on y Caama˜no, Greenberg), and also with the Mayan language family in (Stark 1972a, 1978). Another language that has been associated with Mayan is Mapuche (Stark 1970, Hamp 1971). Olson (1964, 1965) has proposed a genetic relationship between Mayan and the Chipaya language of the Bolivian altiplano (closely related to Uru). As this theory became widely accepted – Longacre (1968: 320) considers it proven – Uru–Chipaya came to be included, along with Mayan, into the North America-based Macro-Penutian phylum in published classifications of the North American and Mesoamerican languages (e.g. Voegelin and Voegelin 1965). Campbell (1973) later showed that many of the similarities observed by Olson between Chipaya and Mayan could have been the result of contact with Quechua or Aymara. Very little is left of the arguments that seemed to have convinced the Americanist linguistic community for some time. A serious drawback is the lack of a good grammar 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 39 and dictionary of Uru and Chipaya, which makes verification a difficult task for the non-initiated. Family-internal reconstruction work was carried out for Panoan by Shell (1965, 1975), and for Tacanan by Key (1968) and by Girard (1971). Another complex of proposals concerns the connection of Panoan and Tacanan with the Bolivian Moset´en language (Su´arez 1969) and the relationship of both groups to Uru–Chipaya, to Yuracar´e (also in Bolivia) and to the Chon languages of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (Su´arez 1973, following Swadesh 1962 in the latter two suggestions). Key (1978) compared Pano– Tacanan and Moset´en to Araucanian. The extensive Arawakan or Maipuran family has been the subject of much comparative and classificatory work (Shafer 1959, Kingsley Noble 1965, Matteson 1972, Tovar 1986, Valenti 1986, Payne 1991a). Kingsley Noble includes the Uru and Puquina groups and Araw´ainhis comparison. Arawakan and Araw´a share rather specific features of their gender systems but are quite far apart lexically. Matteson includes Madi (Araw´a) and Harakmbut, a procedure which is rejected by Tovar. David L. Payne (1991a) does not include Araw´a and Harakmbut within the Arawakan family. Harakmbut has now been shown to be related to the Brazilian Katukina family with a suggested further connection to Macro-Ge (Adelaar 2000). Although Arawakan as a whole constitutes a closely-knit family with strong lexical resemblances (Rodrigues 1986: 70), the supposed affiliation between Arawakan and a number of languages in the Andean region has met with reserve. Such languages are Amuesha (recognised as Arawakan by Tello in 1913), Apolista (shown to be Arawakan by David L. Payne 1991b), Chamicuro (Parker 1987) and Res´ıgaro. Although Amuesha (spoken in the Andean foothills of the Peruvian ) seemed at the best a highly divergent member of the Arawakan family, Wise (1976) convincingly demonstrated that Amuesha is closely related to pre-Andean Arawakan groups, such as Campa, Machiguenga and Piro, the relationship being obscured by rather unusual phonetic changes that took place in Amuesha. These changes must have occurred recently because they have also affected loan words from Spanish. The classificatory status of Res´ıgaro is discussed by Allin (1975) and by David L. Payne (1985); see also Aikhenvald (2001). The fact that Uru–Chipaya and Puquina are by no means closely related invalidates their inclusion into Arawakan as a subgroup, a hypothesis which is nevertheless defended by de Cr´equi-Montfort and Rivet (1925–7), Kingsley Noble (1965) and Greenberg (1987). It does not, however, preclude the possibility that one of the two languages, i.e. Puquina, exhibits a remote Arawakan affinity. There are, in fact, similarities in the lexicon and, above all, in the pronominal system (cf. section 3.5). The ongoing inves- tigation of the internal relations within the Arawakan family, which once spread over 40 1 Introduction much of South America and the Caribbean, holds great promise for the unravelling of the continent’s linguistic puzzle. David L. Payne (1990) has pointed at some very striking similarities concerning the formation of possessive nouns in four South American families, Arawakan, Araw´a, Cariban and Candoshi, which are difficult to explain through borrowing. On the other hand, Rodrigues (1985a) has presented well-documented lexical evidence relating the Cariban family to the Tupi stock (tronco Tup´ı ), a huge genetic construct attaining its maximum differentiation in the Brazilian Madeira basin. Lexical similarities between Tupi and Macro-Ge (tronco Macro-Jˆe)were already noticed by Davis (1968, 1985) and confirmed in Rodrigues (1985b). The suggested genetic relationship of Tupi, Cariban and Macro-Ge is supported by typological similarities (a relatively loose morphological structure and a lack of polysynthesis), as observed by Doris Payne (1990b); see also Rodrigues (2000). David L. Payne (1981) investigated the alleged relationship of the Jivaroan languages and Candoshi (proposed in both Greenberg’s classifications). Although he found lexical similarities, these lay in the sphere of flora and fauna and seemed to point at bor- rowing. David L. Payne (1990: 84–5) no longer considers the evidence for a J´ıvaro– Candoshi grouping convincing, but he mentions some grammatical similarities between Arawakan, Candoshi and Cariban. In Su´arez’sclassification (1974), Jivaroan is linked to Cahuapanan, another small language family of the northern Peruvian foothills. Kaufman (1990) considers this a possible relationship. Among several other suggestions, Kaufman (1994: 63) offers an interesting new proposal concerning a genetic relationship between Candoshi, Omurano (Mayna), and Taushiro (all in the Peruvian Amazon). Anew proposal concerning a possible genetic relationship between two linguistic groups that had never been associated before has been made by Croese and Payne (Croese 1990). They observed rather striking lexical similarities between Araucanian (Mapuche) and the Arawakan family. The matter requires further investigation. For the Migliazza (1978a, mentioned in Migliazza 1985) proposes a rather close genetic relationship with Yanomaman,based on a cognate number of about 40 per cent, and a more remote relationship with Chibchan (see above). The Guaicuruan language family (including Toba as its principal representative in the pre-Andean space) and the Matacoan language family have, together with a third group, Lengua–Mascoy, their centre of gravity in the Gran Chaco. Tovar (1981) found considerable lexical resemblance between Toba and the Matacoan languages. Whether this is due to a common genetic origin or borrowing is an issue awaiting further in- vestigation. Tovar also observes lexical similarities between Matacoan and Arawakan. In Greenberg’s classification Matacoan, Guaicuruan and Lengua–Mascoy are taken together. For Charr´uan, a group of extinct languages once located in Uruguay and 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 41

Argentinian Entre R´ıos, Arawakan, Matacoan, Lule–Vilelan and Guaicuruan connec- tions have been proposed by Perea y Alonso (1937), Ferrario (Ms), Rona (1964) and Su´arez (1974), respectively. See for the three first proposals the discussion in Longacre (1968: 353–4), who seems to give most credit to Ferrario’s arguments for the Matacoan connection, cited in Censabella (1999: 61). Suˇsnik (1978: 94) appears to favour a Guaicuruan connection. Among the languages of the southernmost part of South America, a grouping was recognised as early as 1913 by Lehmann-Nitsche. It consisted of the Patagonian languages (Tehuelche, Tehues) and the languages of Tierra del Fuego’s main island (Selknam or Ona, Haush). This grouping was called Tshon or Chon,adenomination that includes elements of the words ‘Tehuelche’ and ‘Ona’. For many languages once spoken in Argentina it will probably never be possible to even approximately determine a genetic affiliation because the populations in question were exterminated before their languages could be recorded. Viegas Barros has proposed a genetic relationship between Kawesqar and Yahgan (Censabella 1999: 88). A final word about possible trans-Pacific genetic connections. Although there have been many proponents of such connections (Rivet 1925; Imbelloni 1928; Ibarra Grasso 1958), no valid arguments were brought forward to support them. The search for them, however, has shown at the least two lexical items shared by and languages in South America. One of them is the name of a plant domesticated in the New World, the sweet (Ipomoea batatas), Easter Island kumara,Hawaiian ʔuala, which is found as k’umar or k’umara in Quechua and Aymara. The second word is toki, Easter Island ‘stone axe’, Mapuche ‘stone axe’, ‘military chief (the holder of the axe)’; compare also Yurumangu´ı totoki ‘axe’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1945). Although the former case constitutes near proof of incidental contact between inhabitants of the Andean region and the South Pacific, the latter is not nearly as convincing but certainly deserves attention. Apparently, there were sporadic contacts that led to an occasional interchange of words, not to migrations of entire populations that could have brought along their languages.

1.7.4 The Greenberg (1987) proposal The appearance of Greenberg (1987) brought the discussion about the origins of lan- guage, both in the Andes and elsewhere in the New World, into a new phase. Rather than merely containing the long expected factual justification of Greenberg’searlier proposal, which, in part, it did, the terrain of comparison was widened to include the whole of native America. It also brought a revision of the classification of the South American Indian languages proposed before. In short, Greenberg (1987) contains the following new elements: 42 1 Introduction

A. All the languages of the New World belong to three families: Eskimo–Aleut, Na– Dene and Amerind; Eskimo–Aleut and Na–Dene are limited to the Arctic and parts of North America. Consequently, all South American and Mesoamerican Indian languages, as well as most North American Indian languages are related. They belong to a single family: Amerind. The tripartite division of the native American languages is associated with three consecutive waves of migration, the first of which is represented by speakers of Amerind. Support for this hypothesis is sought from physical anthropology (blood groups, dental structure) and archaeology; a first outline of it had already been published, before the appearance of Greenberg (1987), in Greenberg, Turner and Zegura (1985, 1986). B. The South American languages are divided into seven subgroups: Macro-Ge, Macro-Panoan, Macro-Carib, Equatorial, Macro-Tucanoan, Andean and Chibchan– Paezan. As in Greenberg’s earlier classification, one language, Yurumangu´ıisassigned to a North American subgroup, Hokan. In addition, Macro-Ge, Macro-Panoan and Macro-Carib are said to form a group at an indermediate level, which corresponds to the Ge–Pano–Carib of Greenberg’s earlier classification; the same holds for Equa- torial and Macro-Tucanoan, which formed part of Andean–Equatorial in the earlier classification. Andean–Equatorial as such is abandoned. So there are four groups at the intermediate level between Amerind and the seven subgroups just enumerated: Ge– Pano–Carib, Andean, Equatorial–Tucanoan and Chibchan–Paezan (the former Macro- Chibchan). For Amerind as a whole, including North America and Mexico, Greenberg posits eleven subgroups and six groups at the intermediate level. As Swadesh (1962) did before him, Greenberg finds more genetic diversity in South America than in North America (except for the presence of non-Amerind Na–Dene and Eskimo– Aleut). C. Chibchan–Paezan receives extensions in North America and elsewhere in the Americas. Its Chibchan division is made to include Tarascan and Cuitlatec, two lan- guage isolates located in Mexico; the Paezan division now includes Timucua, a lan- guage isolate once to be found in Florida. Huarpean (Allentiac), originally classified as Ge–Pano–Carib, has been reassigned to Paezan, where it finds itself together with Atacame˜no. J´ıvaro–Candoshi and the languages associated with it (Esmeralda, Yaruro and Cof´an), originally a separate division of Andean–Equatorial, have been reclassi- fied as Equatorial. Quechua and Aymara are both classified as Andean but no longer treated as a unit. Greenberg (1987: 100) admits ‘that Aymara appears relatively isolated within Andean’. Greenberg’s new classification comes at a point in time when historical linguists tend to be increasingly reluctant to accept distant genetic relationships if not accompanied by solid proof (see, in particular, Campbell and Mithun 1979). Greenberg shows him- self highly critical of the current methods of obtaining such proof, ‘the use of sound 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 43 correspondence tables and asterisked reconstructed forms’ (1987: 1). Instead, Greenberg advocates the search for lexical and grammatical similarities that become apparent from a comparison of many languages at the same time (‘multilateral comparison’). He does not pursue phonetic exactitude and considers it premature to look for regular sound cor- respondence lest other significant similarities should be missed. Greenberg also allows for a substantial amount of error in his data: ‘the method of multilateral comparison is so powerful that it will give reliable results even with the poorest of materials. In- correct material should have merely a randomizing effect’ (1987: 29). As a matter of fact, the data included in Greenberg (1987) are riddled with errors. For instance, Quechua ‘to see’ is given as ruk, instead of rikhu-, and quechuologists are puzzled about identifying the ‘Huanacucho dialect’ (probably a designation for Ayacucho affected by a confusion with the name of some other dialect, such as Hu´anuco or Huanca). Old misunderstandings are perpetuated and even reinforced. For instance, the alleged unity of Uru–Chipaya and Puquina is not only defended, but Olson’s work is quoted as evidence for it (Greenberg 1987: 84). In reality, Olson (1964) merely observed that some Chipaya call their language Puquina, which says nothing about the undeni- able fact that there also existed a Puquina language quite distinct from present-day Chipaya. Identical namegiving is no proof of identity. On the other hand, possible close connections, such as Guambiano and Barbacoan, or Harakmbut and Katukina, were missed. It is not surprising that Greenberg’s work has met with vigorous criticism; see, for instance, the discussion in Current Anthropology 28: 647–67, Kaufman (1990), and the reviews by Adelaar (1989) and Matisoff (1990). Nevertheless, not all his proposals should be dismissed lightly. Some of the proposed genetic links will undoubtedly turn out valid, even though the factual basis is still insufficient. Greenberg also gives an inventory of grammatical elements that are widespread in the Amerindian languages. Of some cases Greenberg was not the first to have noticed them (see, for instance, Swadesh 1954). The grammatical elements in question are not merely cases of typological resemblances because they concern the formal aspects of morphemes. One of the best-known cases is a pattern consisting of n,oranother non-labial nasal, for reference to first person, in combination with m for reference to second (both usually followed by a vowel). One may be tempted, for instance, to investigate the possibility of a genetic link between, say, Araucanian and Californian Penutian on the basis of Araucanian nyi ‘my’ and mi ‘your’, on the one hand, and Wintu ni ‘I’ and mi ‘you’, on the other, only to find out later that many other Amerindian languages exhibit similar or related patterns of personal reference. Whatever the origin of such resemblances may be, they can hardly be due to borrowing. In table 1.8, we summarise the classification proposed in Greenberg (1987) insofar as it concerns the languages and language groups located in the Andean region. Alternative 44 1 Introduction

Table 1.8 Greenberg’s (1987) classification of the languages of the Andes

I.   C. Hokan 5. Yurumangui. III. - A. Chibchan 3. Nuclear Chibchan: a. Antioquia (incl. Katio, Nutabe). b. Aruak (incl. Guamaca and Kagaba). c. Chibcha (incl. Duit and Tunebo) d. Cuna. f. Malibu (incl. Chimila). h. . B. Paezan 1. Allentiac (incl. Millcayac). 2. Atacama. 3. Betoi. 4. Chimu. 5. Itonama. 6. Jirajara. 8. Nuclear Paezan: a. Andaqui. b. Barbacoa (incl. Cara, Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer). c. Choco. d. Paez (incl. Guambiano). IV.  A. Aymara Aymara, Jaqaru. B. Itucale–Sabela 1. Itucale. 2. Mayna. 3. Sabela. C. Kahuapana–Zaparo 1. Kahuapana (incl. Jebero and Chayahuita). 2. Zaparo (incl. Arabela and Iquito). D. Northern 1. Catacao. 2. Cholona (incl. Hibito). 3. Culli. 4. Leco. 5. Sechura. E. Quechua. F. Southern 1. Alakaluf. 2. Araucanian. 3. Gennaken (=G¨un¨una K¨une). 4. Patagon (incl. Ona). 5. Yamana. V. – A. Macro-Tucanoan 1. Auixiri. 2. Canichana. 10. Mobima. 11. Muniche. 15. Puinave. 17. Ticuna– Yuri: a. Ticuna. b. Yuri. 18. Tucano. B. Equatorial 1. Macro-Arawakan: a. Guahibo. c. Otomaco. d. Tinigua. e. Arawakan: (i) Arawa. (ii) Maipuran (incl. Amuesha, Apolista, Chamicuro, Res´ıgaro and the Harakmbut languages). (iii) Chapacura. (iv) Guamo. (v) Uro (incl. Puquina and Callahuaya). 2. Cayuvava. 3. Coche (=Kams´a). 4. Jibaro–Kandoshi: a. Cofan. b. Esmeralda. c. Jibaro. d. Kandoshi. e. Yaruro. 5. Kariri–Tupi: b. Tupi. 6. Piaroa (incl. Saliba). 8. Timote. 11. Yuracare. 12. Zamuco. VI. –– A. Macro-Carib 1. Andoke. 2. Bora–Uitoto: a. Bora. b. Uitoto. 3. Carib. 5. Yagua. B. Macro-Panoan 1. Charruan. 2. Lengua. 3. Lule–Vilela: a. Lule. b. Vilela. 4. Mataco–Guaicuru: a. Guaicuru. b. Mataco. 5. Moseten. 6. Pano–Tacana: a. Panoan. b. Tacanan. C. Macro-Ge 1. Bororo. 4. Chiquito. 7. Ge–Kaingan: a. Kaingan. 8. Guato. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 45 names are occasionally added, preceded by an equals sign (=)inorder to ease identi- fication. The lowest level of the classification is left out because not all the language names listed in Greenberg’s classification actually represent different languages but, rather, dialects or different designations of the same language. In other cases, however, they do represent different languages, a fact which may give rise to confusion. 2

The Chibcha Sphere

The present chapter deals with the languages of the northern Andes; the term ‘Chibcha Sphere’ has been chosen because of the historically important role of the Chibcha people in that area. In the sixteenth century the Chibcha or Muisca were the inhabitants of the highland region that coincides with the modern Colombian departments of Boyac´a and Cundinamarca. Although historical sources insist that there was no linguistic unity, it is likely that most Chibcha spoke closely related languages or dialects belonging to a subgroup of the Chibchan language family. At least two languages have been identified: Muisca was spoken on the upland plain (sabana) surrounding the present-day Colombian capital Santaf´edeBogot´a (department of Cundinamarca) and Duit in the department of Boyac´a. By their location in the highlands east of the valley, close to the Amazonian plains, the Chibcha held a peripheral position in the Colombian Andes. Therefore, their linguistic influence on other parts of that area must not be overestimated. The Chibcha were a populous agricultural nation, who specialised in the cultivation of potatoes and cotton. They were divided into several chiefdoms, two of which occupied a leading position. A southern chiefdom, centred in Bacat´a or Muequet´a (near the modern town of Funza, close to present-day Bogot´a), was ruled by a king called the zipa.At the time of the arrival of the Gonzalo Jim´enez de Quesada in 1537, the valley of Bogot´awas filled with a multitude of high wooden buildings, which impressed the Spaniards so much that they gave it the name of Valle de los Alcazares (‘Valley of the Castles’). The zipa’s northern neighbour, located in Hunza (today’s Tunja, the capital of the Boyac´a department), was known as the zaque.Athird town of importance wasSogamoso (), the religious centre of the Chibcha and the seat of a highly venerated wooden temple of huge dimensions. According to tradition, the temple of was burned down accidentally by two greedy Spanish conquistadores,who let go of their torches as they beheld the richness of the gold decorations inside (Hemming 1978: 86–7). The high priest of Sogamoso subsequently changed his name to don Alonso and became one of the most faithful propagandists of the Christian faith (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 555). 2 The Chibcha Sphere 47

O JIR UA G Santa Marta NA TÍO TAIRO QUE CA S A C E RAJARA H N JI Cartagena N MALIBÚ I O A M AMÁN

IL AY C I

L T

O YÓN A A O G M PACABUEY M CUICA C U E E SINÚ OT

V . T I M

Panamá A GUAMO R Mérida HACARITAMA Í GUACA- a

n U e

NORI l G . a I VENEZUELA PANAMA d R YAMESÍ R a g CUNA c a A u Y a M A C OPÓN-CARARE OTOMACO t r CATÍO a GUANE BETOI t o NUTABE LACHE IDABAEZ R

C . AGATANO H LIMA SÁLIBA O CO DUIT

C RA

S NTÁGO Sogamoso Ó PA . O MUZO MAIPURE R C ARMA- E TEGUA ACHAGUA N Tunja n POZO H A MUISCA a C u H IRRA N J C ANSERMA A S. P QUIMBAYA SUTAGAO QUINDÍO O A LILI J A I YURUMANGUÍ C P JAMUNDÍ A COLOMBIA N Í JITIRIJITI APÁEZ PUBENZA U U G Q TIMANÁ A Popayán YALCÓN D N BARBACOA A TAMA San Agustín SINDAGUA QUILLACINGA NIGUA PASTO MALABA ESMERALDEÑO SIONA YUMBO CARA O QUIJO N O H C

L ECUADOR I

Z

A

R PERU B

Map 1 The Chibcha Sphere: overview of ethnolinguistic groups attested in premodern sources

The Chibcha heartland also became known worldwide as the source of the El Dorado legend, a major incentive for conquest and exploration in the northern Amazon. At regular intervals, the cacique or chieftain of Guatavita, one of the most influential vassals of the zipa,would anoint himself with gold dust and plunge into a volcanic lake. The 48 2 The Chibcha Sphere story of El Dorado had a tremendous impact on Spanish conquistadores and adventurers. During the decades following the conquest, they would organise numerous expeditions geared at finding other El Dorados. These expeditions brought considerable havoc and misery to the Chibcha and their neighbours. Their damage in terms of human losses and social disruption was such that the emperor Charles V forbade all such expeditions in 1550 (Hemming 1978: 139). There were some remarkable cultural achievements, such as the goldsmith’s art of the Quimbaya people of the Cauca river valley, the monumental stone sculptures of San Agust´ın in the department of Huila, the Ciudad Perdida (‘lost city’) of the in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, and the pictographic of the Cuna (cf. Nordenski¨old 1928–30). At the same time, the native peoples of the northern Andes were divided. Apart from the powerful Muisca kingdoms, there was no political unity, but rather a conglomerate of small chiefdoms and tribes, living in an almost permanent state of war. These small political units were usually referred to as behetr´ıas by the Spaniards (see, for instance, Cieza de Le´on 1553; Acosta 1590). The difference in this respect between New Granada, as Colombia was called in colonial times, and Peru (including present-day Ecuador) was emphasised by most of the chroniclers. The Chibcha, although highly organised internally, were besieged by the warlike tribes of the Magdalena valley, including the Panche, the Pant´agora and the Pijao, who blocked their way to the west and contributed to their isolation. Within the neighbouring highlands, the Muzo and the Colima were encroaching upon the Chibcha heartland from the northwest. A special caste of warriors, the guecha (probably g¨uecha [wetya]; cf. Uricoechea 1871: 253) were in charge of the defence of the Chibcha realm, which is otherwise described as relatively peaceful. After the arrival of the Spaniards, many Colombian tribes refused to submit and continued to fight the colonial rulers, taking advantage of the rugged physiognomy of the country. Famous is the story, possibly a legend, of la Gaitana,afemale cacique of Timan´ainthe Upper Magdalena valley. In 1543 she is said to have hunted down and ferociously killed the Spanish conquistador Pedro de A˜nasco, who was responsible for burning her son.1 Many sectors of the Magdalena river valley remained dangerous and insecure for travellers well into the twentieth century. The Chimila, who inhabited the region east of the lower Magdalena valley (departments of Cesar and Magdalena) and the Andaqu´ıofthe forest region east of San Agust´ın (departments of Huila and Caquet´a), are known for their long and tenacious resistance. The fearsome Pijao of Huila and Tolima challenged Spanish rule in a large-scale rebellion in the early seventeenth century.

1 The story of La Gaitana is related by the chroniclers (1589) and Pedro Sim´on (1625). Her ethnic background has not been established. She may have belonged either to the P´aez or to the local Yalc´on nation. 2 The Chibcha Sphere 49

Outside the Chibcha heartland, another concentration of highly developed and popu- lous societies was found in the valley of the Cauca river, in the modern departments of Caldas, Risaralda and Quind´ıo. An outstanding position was occupied by the Quimbaya federation, centred around the modern towns of Chinchin´a (near Manizales) and Pereira (Chaves, Morales and Calle 1995: 156). The Quimbaya are known as the most talented goldsmiths of pre-Columbian America. Although the first contacts with the Spanish conquistador Jorge Robledo in 1539 were not particularly hostile, the subsequent re- pression and exploitation by Sebasti´an de Belalc´azar and his men from Peru led to a series of rebellions, which brought about the near annihilation of the Cauca peoples. The Quimbaya became extinct as a recognisable group around 1700 (Duque G´omez 1970). Their language remains unknown and its affiliations a matter of speculation. Sixteenth-century chroniclers report the existence of almost innumerable different languages. Some of them give a fair account of the situation which can help to make us aware of the loss. Pascual de Andagoya (1545) mentions the Atunceta, Ciaman, Jitirijiti and Lili languages spoken in the area of and Popay´an. Only the names of these languages have been preserved, as well as the observation that they were so different from each other that the use of interpreters was required. Pedro de Cieza de Le´on (1553), the chronicler of Peru, who accompanied Captain Robledo in his conquest of the lower and middle Cauca valley, has left very precise information about the language situation of Antioquia, Caldas, Quind´ıo and Risaralda. Through an analysis of Cieza’s linguistic observations, Jij´on y Caama˜no (1938: Appendix, pp. 109–12) points at the existence of four different languages in the Caldas–Quind´ıo–Risaralda region: Arma– Pozo, Quimbaya–Carrapa–Picara–Paucura, Quind´ıo and Irra. However, this enumeration does not include the languages of the Anserma, of the Chancos nation and of several other local groups. They may either have been separate languages, or be included in one of the groupings just mentioned. The information on all these languages is too limited to permit any conclusion as to their genetic affiliation. An exception are the languages of Antioquia (known as Old Cat´ıo and Nutabe), which were identified as Chibchan (Rivet 1943–6; Constenla Uma˜na 1991: 31). Interestingly, one of the few words mentioned by Cieza de Le´on for the language spoken in the towns of Arma and Pozo (department of Caldas) is ume ‘woman’, which corresponds to ome in the Cuna language of the Colombian and Panamanian Caribbean coast. A frequent ending -racua is reminiscent of the Cuna derivational ending -kwa (cf. Llerena Villalobos 1987: 72–3). Such similarities, as well as some others, were observed by Rivet (1943–6) but remain merely suggestive as long as no additional data are found concerning the languages of the Cauca valley. Since most of the indigenous languages were lost without possibility of recovery, the extent of linguistic variety in the northern Andes may never be fully appreci- ated. The few languages that have survived the contact with the European invaders may or 50 2 The Chibcha Sphere may not be representative. As it stands, none of the original languages of the Cauca and Magdalena valleys have survived, and there is hardly any documentation on them. The main languages of the sabana, Muisca and Duit, became extinct in the eighteenth century, although in the first case the available documentation is relatively extensive. On the other hand, some surviving groups (e.g. the Chocoan Ember´a, the Cuna, the P´aez) have been remarkably expansive in recent times. From this perspective, the original linguistic situation and the present-day one are hardly comparable.

2.1 The language groups and their distribution Colombia and western Venezuela form the northernmost section of the Andean region. This area was a meeting point of linguistic and cultural influences from the central Andes, the Amazon basin, the Caribbean and Central America. From an archaeological and cultural point of view, it is part of a region often referred to as the ‘Intermediate Area’ (Area Intermedia), negatively defined as an area belonging neither to Mesoamerica, nor to the Central Andean civilisation domain. In addition to Colombia and western Venezuela, the Intermediate Area also comprises a substantial part of Central America. The linguistic features of the Intermediate Area have been studied by Constenla Uma˜na (1991), who finds it subdivided into three main typological regions: a Central American–Northern Colombian area (including the Cof´an as an outlier), an Ecuadorian– Southern Colombian area, and a Guajiro–Western Venezuelan area. Two important language families, Cariban and Chibchan,have left their mark in the northern Andes since precontact times. Cariban has its origin in the Amazonian and Guyanese regions, whereas Chibchan has Central American connections. Considering their distribution and the amount of internal differentiation within the area under dis- cussion, the intrusion of the Chibchan languages in the northern Andes is clearly much older than that of the . Nevertheless, a Central American origin for the Chibchan languages seems likely because some of the most fundamental diversity internal to the family is found in Costa Rica and western Panama (Constenla Uma˜na 1990). Furthermore, the closest presumable relatives of the Chibchan family as a whole, Lenca and Misumalpa, are located at the northern, Central American borders of the Chibchan domain (Constenla Uma˜na 1991). The area of the Caribbean coast of Colombia comprises two important nuclei of Chibchan-speaking populations: the Cuna, around the Gulf of Urab´a and adjacent areas of (Atlantic) Panama, at one end, and the complex of indigenous peoples of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (Ika, Kankuamo, Kogui and Wiwa) and the Sierra de Perij´a(Bar´ı), at the other. Between these two geographical extremes, several other groups were decimated or eliminated early in the colonial process. In the present-day departments of Bol´ıvar, C´ordoba and Sucre, three prosperous chiefdoms, Fincen´u, Pancen´u and Cen´ufana represented the Sin´u culture, renowned for its burials rich in gold 2.1 The language groups and their distribution 51

O O N JIR A A J U AU G R A PA N †) IA A Í( ER M U PR KOGUI A K JA D N Maracaibo Cartagena IKA A K YUKPA GUAJIRO CHIMILA recent expansion BARÍ ( † ) EMBERÁ T E T I M O VENEZUELA CUNA . PANAMA R a c OPÓN- au CARARE(†) C TUNEBO YARURO A E Á t M r R a HITNÜ CUIBA t E B o B

E Medellín R

M R . SÁLIBA .

E Á . R R a . a et R n e M n l I a a N u d A g U J ACHAGUA K PIAROA WAUNANA a Bogotá I n S

a M S P PIJAO(†) IAP OCO PUINAVE YAVITERO(†) Cali PÁEZ GU AMB COLOMBIA BANIVA DEL IAN viare R O TINIGUA Gua . GUAINÍA EMBERÁ GUAYABERO TOTORÓ CURRIPACO Popayán IN CUBEO GA KAMSÁ N YURUTÍ KAKUA O PISAMIRA GUANANO KOREGUAJE- AWA CARAPANA TARIANA TAMA DESANO PIT TATUYO PIRATAPUYO CHA’PALAACHI N SIONA BARÁ TUCANO Á CABIYARÍ F MAKAGUAJE TUYUCA O C TETETÉ (†) Caquetá R. Quito HUPDÁ TSAFIKI TANIMUCA ANGUTERO ANDOQUE NA YUCU CARIJONA P H M NONUYA u U UIN L tu I ANE ECUADOR m TO MIRAÑA a T y O BORA o I R OCAINA YURÍ . RESÍGARO OREJÓN Z YAGUA TICUNA COCAMA A PERU R B

Map 2 The Chibcha Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages (mid twentieth century). The shaded area surrounding Lake Maracaibo indicates a recent expansion of the Guajiro language. 52 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(Chaves et al. 1995). The surviving descendants of the Sin´u, who live at San Andr´es de Sotavento (C´ordoba), not far from the town of Sincelejo, have no record of their origi- nal languages. The language of the lower Magdalena river (between Tamalameque and ) was known as Malib´u.Itand the extinct languages of neighbouring peoples, such as the Mocana and the Pacabueyes,have been grouped with the (Chibchan) lan- guage of the Chimila by Loukotka (1968: 244) without any factual basis (cf. Constenla Uma˜na 1991). The Chimila language is still spoken today. The language of the Tairona, whowere destroyed in 1600 after almost a century of warfare with the colonists of Santa Marta, may have been related to (or even identical with) one of its Chibchan neighbours further east in the Sierra Nevada.2 The Andes northeast of the Chibcha heartland were inhabited by several agricultural highland peoples who shared some of its cultural characteristics. They include the Lache, wholived near the (northeastern Boyac´a), the Guane in the southern part of (south of ) and the Chitarero of the Pamplona area (department of Norte de Santander). The Agatano occupied the mountains west of V´elez (Santander). Most of these peoples have been classified as Chibchan, although there are hardly any linguistic data to support such a supposition. Since the territory of the Lache bordered on that of the modern (Chibchan) Tunebo or Uwa of the eastern Andean slopes and lowlands in Casanare, it is tempting to speculate that they represented the same linguistic grouping. Here again, however, the necessary data on Lache are lacking. The Venezuelan Andes form a geographical continuation of the area just referred to. The high Andes of the states of M´erida and Trujillo comprise a substantial indigenous (now Spanish-speaking) population, representing the (extinct) Timote–Cuica family, not related to Chibchan. In the pre-Andean hills of the states of Lara and Falc´on, the Jirajaran family (also extinct) constituted another linguistic isolate. Cariban-speaking peoples survive in the Colombian–Venezuelan border area west of Lake Maracaibo (Yukpa and Japreria). Elsewhere in the northern Andean region the identification of Cariban languages has been problematic as a result of their poor docu- mentation and early extinction. In addition, Spanish chroniclers did not employ the term ‘Carib’ (caribe) primarily as a linguistic concept, but rather as a cover term for Indians who remained intractable in their contacts with the colonial authorities, and, especially, for those who used arrow-poison and practised cannibalism. Such tribes inhabited the

2 The linguistic connection between the area of Santa Marta and the Muisca highlands of Bogot´a is illustrated by Piedrahita’s account of the conquest of 1537. In 1676 he wrote: Quienes m´as percibieron el idioma fueron Peric´on, y las Indias, que se llevaron de la costa de Santa Marta, y R´ıo Grande, que con facilidad lo pronunciaban, y se comunicaban enel ´ con los Bogot´aes (‘Those who best understood the language [of the Muisca] were Peric´on [the expedition’s guide] and the Indian women, who hailed from the coast of Santa Marta, and the R´ıo Grande [Magdalena], who with ease pronounced it, and communicated in it with the Bogot´aes’; Ostler 2000, following Uhle 1890). 2.1 The language groups and their distribution 53

Magdalena valley, where at least one group, Op´on–Carare, has been identified as Cariban on linguistic grounds (Durbin and Seijas 1973a, b). In the case of other Magdalenan peoples, such as the Panche and the Pijao,aCariban affiliation remains hypotheti- cal, although the poor lexical data of the Pijao language that are left exhibit traces of Cariban influence in its basic vocabulary (cf. Constenla Uma˜na 1991: 62). Cariban influ- ence in the Magdalena valley is also suggested by its unique Carib-sounding toponymy (Coyaima, Natagaima, Tocaima), which is found in both the ancient Panche and Pijao areas. In other areas, however, where a Carib presence has been suspected mainly on cultural grounds, e.g. in the Cauca valley, there is no linguistic evidence to support it. In addition to Cariban and Chibchan, two more families which have their origin out- side the northern Andes are found in the area under discussion. The Arawakan family of probable Amazonian origin is represented near the Caribbean coast (Guajiro and Paraujano). The Quechuan group (cf. chapter 3) is represented by the Inga or Ingano language in the southern Colombian departments of Nari˜no and Caquet´a. The influence of Quechua is particularly noticeable in the southern Andes of Colombia, notwith- standing the fact that local languages, such as Pasto, Quillacinga and Sindagua contin- ued to remain in use for a long time. It is not unlikely that Quillacinga and Sindagua survive in present-day Kams´a or Sibundoy and in (Barbacoan) Cuaiquer or Awa Pit, respectively (Groot and Hooykaas 1991). The department of Nari˜no, bordering on Ecuador, has a substantial indigenous population, even though the use of Spanish is now predominant. The extent of Quechua influence in southern Colombia, as well as the moment of its introduction, is a matter of debate. It may already have been present before the arrival of the Spaniards, or it may have been introduced by the yanacona (serfs) from Quito, who accompanied Belalc´azar and other conquistadores on their expeditions. The Quechua- speaking yanacona played an important part in the conquest of New Granada. They were eventually allowed to settle down at several locations north of Popay´an, in the Bogot´a area and in Huila (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 118–20). As early as 1540, Andagoya (1986: 133) observed a sort of mixed use of Quechua and Spanish among the Jitirijiti tribe, who lived in the neighbourhood of the present-day town of Cali. He quotes the words of a recently christianised Indian woman turning down an improper proposal made to her by a Spaniard: mana se˜nor que soy casada y tern´a Santa Mar´ıa ternan hancha pi˜na, ‘no, sir, I am married, and the Holy Mary will be very angry’; cf. Quechua mana ‘no’, anˇca pinya ‘very angry’ (tern´a and ternan may represent the Spanish verb tendr´a ‘he/she will have’). In 1758 the Franciscan friar Juan de Santa Gertrudis visited the archaeological remains at San Agust´ın, leaving a detailed account of his findings (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1972). He reported that Quechua, la lengua linga (an adulteration of la lengua del Inga ‘the language of the Inca’), was used in the Upper Magdalena region, an area which had been highly multilingual in the sixteenth century (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 169). 54 2 The Chibcha Sphere

As might be expected, not all northern Andean languages can be assigned to one of the four widely extended families discussed so far. In addition to the two extinct Venezuelan families mentioned earlier, there are at least two local families, Barbacoan in the southern departments of Cauca and Nari˜no (as well as in Ecuador) and Chocoan in the Pacific region. There are five living Barbacoan languages: Awa Pit (Cuaiquer), Chapalaachi (Cayapa), Guambiano, Totor´o and Tsafiki (Colorado). Chapalaachi and Tsafiki are only spoken in Ecuador. Chocoan is represented by two languages: Ember´a and Waunana. The P´aez language of Cauca and Huila is either an isolate or the surviving member of a small family. On the eastern slopes Kams´a or Sibundoy and Andaqu´ı (the latter extinct) are isolates, and so are Yurumangu´ı and Esmeralde˜no,extinct languages of the Pacific region of Colombia and Ecuador. In the following sections we will discuss some general characteristics of the principal documented languages of the Colombian and Venezuelan Andes, as well as the north- western part of Ecuador. Because of its historical importance, Muisca will be treated in somewhat more detail. Demographically important languages, such as Guajiro and P´aez, will also receive particular attention. The final section of this chapter contains an overview of the languages of the eastern lowlands that are adjacent to the northern Andes.

2.2 Research on the native languages of Colombia Among the precursors of academic studies concerning the languages of the northern Andes two scholars must be mentioned, the natural scientist and physicist Jos´e Celestino Mutis (1732–1808) and the linguist (1834–80). After his arrival in New Granada in 1761, Mutis became an enthusiastic collector of descriptive material of difficult accessibility concerning the indigenous languages of the Spanish American domain. In 1787 he received the commission to make a collection of indigenous language materials as the result of a request addressed by Catherine II of Russia to the king of Spain. The empress needed these materials for her ambitious project to document the languages of the world in Saint Petersburg. Mutis carried out his assignment with great care, making copies so as to avoid losses. As it appears, most of Mutis’s materials never reached Russia (Ortega Ricaurte 1978: 102), but copies remain in Madrid. Born in Colombia, Uricoechea, a man of wide interests, spent part of his life in Belgium, where he held a professorship in the language. He was the founder of the series Biblioth`eque Linguistique Am´ericaine (1871–1903), in which much early work on the indigenous languages of the Americas, including his own on Muisca, was brought together. In more recent times, the Frenchman Paul Rivet (1876–1958) collected and published material on numerous languages of Colombia and the Venezuelan Andes, including extinct languages of which only a minimum amount of data could be found. Landaburu 2.2 Research on the native languages of Colombia 55

(1996a, 1998, 1999) has published substantial parts of Rivet’s Colombian archive, kept at the Mus´ee de l’Homme in Paris. In Colombia a number of important studies, both descriptive and historical, have appeared, especially in recent decades. In 1965 Sergio El´ıas Ortiz published a survey of the Colombian indigenous languages. The Instituto Caro y Cuervo in Bogot´a, a venerable institution originally dedicated to Hispanic studies, issued several works of indigenous linguistic interest. Among these are a history of studies dedicated to the Colombian native languages (Ortega Ricaurte 1978), a history of the fate of the indigenous languages in colonial society (Triana y Antorveza 1987), an overview of historical-comparative efforts concerning these languages (Rodr´ıguez de Montes 1993) and two fundamental works on Muisca (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1980, 1987; see section 2.9 on Muisca). A most remarkable achievement is Lenguas Ind´ıgenas de Colombia: una visi´on descriptiva (Indigenous Languages of Colombia: a Descriptive Vision) (Gonz´alez and Rodr´ıguez 2000), a monumental book containing descriptive sketches and information by different specialists on all the native languages spoken in Colombia today. In 1984 the Universidad de los Andes in Bogot´a, in co-operation with the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), initiated a programme for the training of descriptive linguists under the direction of Jon Landaburu, in order to study and document the indigenous languages of Colombia in a systematic way. The institution harbouring this programme, the Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes (CCELA), issues a series of descriptive studies and dictionaries, which have appeared regularly since 1987. Up to now, the series includes work on Achagua, Cuna, Ember´a, Chimila, Damana, Guambiano, Guayabero, Kogui, P´aez, Sikuani and Ticuna. Most of the contributions in Gonz´alez and Rodr´ıguez (2000) have been written by linguists trained in the CCELA programme. Members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, which has deployed activities in Colombia for several decades, have produced descriptive studies, inter alia,ofAchagua, Ember´a, Ika and several Tucanoan languages. Also worth mentioning is a useful com- parative vocabulary of Colombian indigenous languages, compiled by Huber and Reed (1992). The journal Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha, published by the University of Costa Rica at San Jos´e, contains much data and discussion concerning the reconstruction of earlier stages of Chibchan in particular. Other important work by the Costa Rican school is Constenla’s dissertation on the reconstruction of Chibchan phonology (Constenla Uma˜na 1981) and his book on the typology of the Intermediate Area (Constenla Uma˜na 1991). Morphosyntactic reconstruction of Colombian Chibchan languages is attempted in Ostler (2000). The indigenous literature of the northern Andean area is mainly confined to collec- tions of folkloric text. An overview of the traditional literature in the Chibchan languages 56 2 The Chibcha Sphere can be found in Constenla Uma˜na (1990a). Two Chibchan languages, Cuna and Kogui, are well represented in this respect. Many Cuna texts were collected in the first half of the twentieth century by researchers of the Ethnographic Museum in G¨oteborg (Nordenski¨old 1928, 1930a, 1938; Holmer 1951; Holmer and Wass´en 1953). An eval- uation of the literary value of these texts is provided by Kramer (1970). More recent text material and an extensive study of Cuna discourse and speech styles can be found in Sherzer (1983, 1986). A rich corpus of Kogui folkloric text was collected by Preuss in 1915 and published in different issues of the journal Anthropos (Preuss 1921–5; cf. also Fischer and Preuss 1989). Further information on Kogui traditional literature can be found in Reichel-Dolmatoff (1950–1). Of great interest is an extensive collection of Huitoto myths, transcribed and with a vocabulary and a German translation, again by Preuss (1921–3). Finally, Howard and Sch¨ottelndreyer (1977) present some texts in Kams´a and in Cat´ıo (Choc´o), respectively.

2.3 Chocoan The Chocoan language family is located on the Pacific side of Colombia and eastern Panama.3 It consists of two languages, Ember´a and Waunana. The Waunana language has its principal location in the lower part of the San Juan river valley in the Colombian department of Choc´o. Additionally, a substantial number of Waunana speakers have migrated to coastal areas adjacent to Panama and to the Darien region of Panama itself. The Ember´a constitute a flexible and expanding population, which have colonised new territories whenever external or demographic pressure incited them to do so. At present, the Ember´a not only inhabit Darien and the Choc´o, but also parts of Antioquia, Cauca, C´ordoba, Nari˜no, Risaralda and Valle del Cauca, thus occupying areas both to the north and to the south of the Waunana. In recent times some Ember´ahave reached Ecuador, and others have crossed the Andes into the Amazon region (department of Caquet´a). Chocoan presence is easily traceable by the frequent occurrence of the ending -d´o ‘river’ in place names (e.g. Apartad´o, Baud´o, Docampad´o, Opogad´o). The number of Ember´a speakers in Colombia is estimated at more than 70,000, while that of the Colombian Waunana has been calculated at ca. 8,000 (Arango and S´anchez 1998).4

3 Loukotka (1968) reports the existence of an extinct language isolate in the area of Bah´ıa de Solano (northern Choc´o), which he calls Idabaez.Itisbased on a report concerning a short-lived missionary adventure of the Franciscans between 1632 and 1646 (Rowe 1950a). Only one word (tubete ‘medicine-man’) and the name of a chief (Hijuoba)were recorded, too little to attribute a separate identity to this group on linguistic grounds only. 4 The population numbers supplied by Arango and S´anchez (1998) often seem to be inflated in relation to figures taken from other sources. It has nothing to do with a difference in number be- tween speakers of the language and members of the ethnic group. In many Colombian indigenous groups the ancestral language is used by all members. 2.3 Chocoan 57

In their expansion the Ember´ahave settled in areas formerly occupied by other peo- ples who became extinct during the process of colonisation. Ember´aisknown under different names according to the region where it is spoken (Cat´ıo in central Antioquia and C´ordoba, Cham´ı in southern Antioquia and Risaralda, Saija in the area south of Buenaventura, Samb´u in the Panamanian border area). At least in one case, such a name (Cat´ıo) originally designated a Chibchan people who preceded the Ember´ain the same area (central Antioquia). Whether or not there has been any continuity be- tween the modern Choc´o and extinct societies such as the Quimbaya and Sin´u, re- mains an open question.5 A connection that certainly seems promising is that between Chocoan and the language of the Cueva people, who inhabited central and eastern Panama at the beginning of the sixteenth century (Loewen 1963a; Constenla and Margery 1991). Constenla and Margery (1991) point out a number of lexical and morphological similarities between the Chocoan and the Chibchan languages, which may indicate historical contact or a possible genetic relationship. It seems useful to observe that there are a number of close lexical similarities with the Barbacoan languages as well, e.g. Proto-Barbacoan (Curnow and Liddicoat 1998) *kim-ϕu ‘nose’, Guambiano (Curnow 1998) kalu,Awa Pit (Calvache Due˜nas 2000) kail y ‘ear’; Proto-Chocoan (Constenla and Margery 1991) *k˜eb´u ‘nose’, *kwr´ ‘ear’. Greenberg (1987) links Chocoan with Barbacoan and P´aez. Rivet’s proposal of a genetic link between Chocoan and Cariban (Rivet 1943b) has been rejected upon several occasions (cf. Pardo and Aguirre 1993: 278–92). The difference between the two Chocoan languages, Ember´a and Waunana, is in the first place lexical. Ember´a itself is best treated as a . From a phonolog- ical point of view, the Chocoan languages are complex and show a considerable amount of internal variation. Comparative studies of the phonology of the different varieties can be found in Loewen (1963b), and Pardo and Aguirre (1993). Llerena Villalobos (1995) contains the views of different authors on the phonology of several Ember´avarieties. Waunana has many syllable- and word-final obstruents, whereas Ember´a has a preference for open . All varieties of Chocoan present three series of stops, which can be either voiceless aspirated/voiceless unaspirated/voiced lax (Waunana, Saija), or - less plain (somewhat aspirated)/voiced tense/voiced implosive (the northern dialects of Ember´a). In addition to these basic distinctions, there is much allophonic variation; in

5 In a discussion of Rivet (1943b), Constenla and Margery (1991) refer to a short word list collected by Bastian (1878) among possible descendants of the Quimbaya. It seems relatable to Chocoan. Considering the late date, so long after the recorded extinction of Quimbaya, one has to take into account the possibility that the interviewed persons were Chocoans who had migrated into the area. A closer analysis of the place and circumstances under which this word list was collected can possibly throw light on the matter. 58 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.1 Overview of the consonant inventories of Chocoan languages and dialects (adapted from Pardo and Aguirre 1993)

Atrato, Upper San Antioquia, Waunana, Saija Lower Baud´o Juan N. Choc´o

Stops Aspirated ph th kh ph th kh ph th kh ph th kh

Plain p t k ʔ ptk

Voiced b d g b d b d b d

Implosive   /ð

Affricates Voiced z dzˇ and β Fricatives Voicelesscsh ˇ

Vibrants r rr

Resonants l m n

Approximants w y

a nasal environment the stops generally have prenasalised allophones. The dialect of the lower Baud´oriver is unique in that it presents four series in the labial and dental articulations (voiceless aspirated/voiceless unaspirated/voiced lax/voiced implosive). A constant feature of all the Chocoan languages is a phonemic opposition between a sim- ple (r) and a multiple vibrant (rr), both of which occur in intervocalic and syllable-final position. The number of affricates and fricatives varies according to the dialect. Only the southern varieties have a phonemic glottal stop. Table 2.1 contains a synopsis of the consonant systems of Waunana and a number of Ember´a dialects. Constenla and Margery (1991) propose a reconstruction of Proto-Chocoan phonology. In spite of the rather elaborate inventories of stops found today in the Chocoan varieties, they reconstruct a stop system with voiced (b, d ) and voiceless (p, t, k) elements only. This reconstruction is claimed to be valid for Proto-Ember´a, as well as for Proto-Chocoan in its totality. The minimal vowel inventory found in all present-day varieties comprises three high vowels (i, , u), two mid vowels (e, o) and one low vowel (a). In addition, Waunana has an extra row of lowered (open) high vowels; Saija has an extra central vowel (). A nasality opposition is relevant for all six vowels. Progressive nasal spread can affect whole words unless checked by an opaque consonant (one of the obstruents, or rr). In an analysis of 2.3 Chocoan 59

Saija (Harms 1994), the nasal consonants are treated as allophones of b and d before a nasal vowel. Also in Saija stress can be contrastive. Two detailed and recent studies address the structure of Ember´avarieties. Harms (1994) deals with the Saija variety of Nari˜no, Cauca and Valle, whereas Aguirre Licht (1998, 1999) describes the Cham´ı dialect of Cristian´ıa (southwestern Antioquia). Llerena Villalobos (1994) treats predication in the Cham´ı dialect of the Upper And´agueda (interior of Choc´o). In Gonz´alez and Rodr´ıguez (2000), Hoyos Ben´ıtez presents a sketch of the Napip´ıriver dialect (in the Baud´o hills, coast of north-central Choc´o) and Mej´ıa Fonnegra a sketch of Waunana. A detailed study of loan words in Waunana by Loewen (1960) documents language contact with Spanish. Chocoan word forms present an agglutinating structure which is mainly based on suffixes. Prefixes are exceptional. Nominal suffixes refer to case and number. Verbal suffixes refer to aspect, tense, number and mood. The verbal furthermore includes suffixes for causative, directionality and other derivational categories. Auxil- iaries and copula play an important role in the grammar. There is a rich choice of compound verbs, including some cases of object incorporation. In a genitive construction a possessor precedes its head without any special marker. This is also the case when the modifier is a pronoun. and numerals, however, follow their heads. Personal reference is indicated by pronouns, which precede a noun (when referring to a possessor), or a verb (when referring to subject and object). There is no indication of personal reference in the verb form itself, except that Waunana has a set of auxiliary verbs reflecting person-of-subject, which are limited to stative constructions (Mej´ıa Fonnegra 2000). All Chocoan languages are ergative. The case system comprises an ergative marker which is obligatory with agents of transitive constructions. Objects of transitive verbs and subjects of intransitive verbs remain unmarked. The preferred constituent order is Agent–Patient–Verb. For instance, in Waunana, we find:

(1) khum-au su:rr bu:rr-pi-hi-m -E deer fall-CA-PA-DV ‘The jaguar caused the deer to fall down.’ (Mej´ıa Fonnegra 2000: 89) (2) su:rr bu:rr-hi-m deer fall-PA-DV ‘The deer fell down.’ (Mej´ıa Fonnegra 2000: 89)

A special ergative marker is used with singular pronouns:

(3) mu-a p-rik binʔe de:-hi-m I-E you-DA medicine give-PA-DV ‘I gave medicine to you.’ (Mej´ıa Fonnegra 2000: 90) 60 2 The Chibcha Sphere

When plurality is marked on the verb in Ember´a, it refers to the agent, regardless of whether the latter is in the ergative or in the . Examples from Saija (southern Ember´a) are:

(4) eper˜a:-r˜a-pa´ phokhura´ 6 kho-pa-ˇci-d´a person-PL-E toasted.corn eat-HB-PA-PL ‘The Epena used to eat toasted corn.’ (Harms 1994: 98) (5) mwarr´a-r˜aˇc˜o:-pa-ˇci-d´a I son-PL fight-HB-PA-PL ‘My children used to fight.’ (Harms 1994: 103)

Ember´a has a series of copula verbs used in adjectival and locative constructions. They (lexically) encode such distinctions as number, aspect, honorific and size. In example (6), also from Saija, ci-to:n-a-ˇ is the honorific plural past stem of the copula verb. A past- tense marker (-ˇci-)isthen still required.

(6) cupˇ r´ıaci-to:n-a-pa-ˇ ˇ ci-d´a poor be.HN-PL-PA-HB-PA-PL ‘They were very poor.’ (Harms 1994: 32)

The following examples from Cham´ı illustrate a predicative construction with a dual copula verb (7), and a locative construction with a possessive interpretation (8), respectively.

(7) d´aiep˜ ˜ era´ pan´u-ma we Ember´a be.D-DV ‘The two of us are Ember´a.’ (Aguirre Licht 1999: 55) (8) ciˇ w´ar mar´ıa-e u´ DC child Mar´ıa-L be.SG ‘The child belongs to Mar´ıa.’ (Aguirre Licht 1999: 56)

2.4 Yurumangu´ı Yurumangu´ı is the name of a group of Indians who inhabited the upper reaches of the Cajambre, Nava and Yurumangu´ırivers. These rivers descend to the Pacific Ocean from the mountain range Los Farallones de Cali, situated southwest of the modern town of Cali in the department of Valle del Cauca. The Yurumangu´ıwere visited between 1765 and 1768 in two expeditions organised by a local prospector, Sebasti´an Lanchas de Estrada. He left a diary and a list of words and expressions in the language, as well as some interesting ethnographic notes. These materials were published in 1940 by Arcila

6 Intervocalic kh has a fricative pronunciation [x]. 2.5 Cuna 61

Robledo (cf. Ortiz 1946). The fate of the Indians of Yurumangu´ı after the two visits of the 1760s is unknown. There have been no further records of their existence. Rivet (1942) made a study of the language data recorded by Lanchas and concluded that Yurumangu´ıwas not visibly related to any other language of the area. He proposed a genetic relationship with the of North America, leaving Yurumangu´ı as the only language with such an exclusive connection outside South America. The suggestion was explicitly followed by Greenberg (1960a, 1987: 132). Jij´on y Caama˜no (1945) proposed both a Hokan and a Chibchan affinity. Many other researchers (e.g. Kaufman 1990, Constenla Uma˜na 1991) prefer to treat the language as an isolate. The data on Yurumangu´ı are very limited and probably unfit to establish genetic connections that are not particularly close. Its simple sound system with a preference for open syllables does not plead in favour of a North American connection. Even though the Yurumangu´ı territory was situated along rivers descending to the Pacific, it was an inland tribe, one of the reasons for which the group could remain unnoticed for so long. Instead of speculating about a marine origin for the Yurumangu´ı, it would probably be more logical to consider them as survivors of one of the groups of the Cali region who may have fled exploitation by the cruel Belalc´azar and his men. Some morphological elements can be deduced from the Yurumangu´ı data, such as a suffix -sa that characterises the citation form of several verbs (e.g. anga-sa ‘to sleep’, sai-sa ‘to die’, ulsa-sa ‘to take out’) and a prefix ca(i)- that occurs frequently in kinship terms and words referring to body parts (e.g. cai-g´ı ‘mother’, cai-enai´e ‘grandmother’, cai-cona ‘head’, cai-lusa ‘hair’). Assumedly, ca(i)- may have been one of the possessive personal reference markers. Interrogative pronouns began with c [k], as, for instance, cana ‘what?’, and cu or co ‘where?’ (cu-na ‘where is it?’, cu-cae ‘where are you?’, co-cobica ‘where do you come from?’, co-cuebiquen ‘where are you going?’). Constenla Uma˜na (1991: 53) observes word order preferences to the effect that a genitive must precede its head, and an adjective must follow its head, characteristics that the language shares with Chocoan. Alexical item worth mentioning is chuma ‘to drink’ (e.g. in chuma-´e ‘drink!’). Ortiz (1946: 25) observes that it is used in southern to denote drunkenness, suggesting that it could be a loan from Yurumangu´ı. However, the same expression is widely used in Ecuador and northern Peru. Its most likely source is Mochica cɥuma- ‘(get) drunk’ (cf. section 3.4). The case suggests that, notwithstanding their apparent isolation, the Yurumangu´ıwere not entirely free of contact with neighbouring speakers of Spanish.

2.5 Cuna In Colombia approximately 1,000 Cuna (autodenomination Tule) occupy two villages near the Gulf of Urab´a: Arqu´ıa (department of Choc´o) and Caim´an Nuevo (department of 62 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Antioquia). A majority of the Cuna people (over 40,000) inhabit neighbouring Panama, where they occupy an autonomous region or , comprising the archipelago of San Blas in the Caribbean and parts of the Darien mainland. The Cunas of Panama obtained their autonomy as a result of the 1925 uprising led by the nele (‘shaman’) Kantule.7 Notwithstanding their present homeland, the Panamanian Cuna are origi- nally from Colombian territory. They were probably chased from the Atrato river valley and the adjacent Pacific region by their hereditary enemies, the Ember´a. On the coast of northern Choc´oaplace name Jurad´o means ‘river of the Cuna’ in Ember´a, sug- gesting that Cuna once may have inhabited that area (cf. Rowe 1950a). During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they moved eastward, attacking the Spanish set- tlements on the Sin´uriver (Fals Borda 1976), and westward, occupying empty areas in the Darien region, which had been inhabited by the extinct Cueva people. In 1681 the Darien Cuna were visited by the English ship’s doctor Lionel Wafer, who stayed with them for a while and published a word list of the language (Friedemann and Arocha 1985).8 The Cuna language belongs to the Chibchan family, of which it constitutes a separate branch (Constenla Uma˜na 1993: 119). Descriptive material on the Cuna language can be found in Holmer (1946, 1947, 1951, 1952), Sherzer (1975, 1978) and Llerena Villalobos (1987, 2000). The sound inventory of Cuna, which is relatively small, is subject to morpheme-internal allophonic variation and an elaborate set of sandhi rules operating at morpheme boundaries. The language has five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and a series of diphthongs or, rather, vowel sequences. Vowels are automatically long in stressed open syllables (stress is normally on the penultimate). Extra-long vowels, analysable as sequences of same vowels, occur as well, in particular, in monosyllabic words (Holmer 1946: 186). Within the consonants there is a distinction between geminate (tense) and simple (lax), as can be seen in table 2.2. Geminate consonants only occur intervocalically; the geminate stops pp, tt, kk and kkw are always voiceless. By contrast, the plain stops p, t, k and kw occur in all positions. They are normally voiced between vowels or when adjacent to a voiced consonant; in word-initial position voicing is optional. The affricate cˇ is always voiceless and acts

7 The kantule, literally, ‘flute (kammu) man (tule)’, is the name of the central figure at girls’ puberty rites (Sherzer 1974). 8 Loukotka (1968: 238–9) apparently treated Wafer’s Cuna word list as a specimen of the Cueva language. The mistaken view that the Cuna are close relatives or even direct descendants of the Cueva is still upheld in literature (e.g. Greenberg 1987: 117; Whitehead 1999: 887). Cuna lan- guage and culture are very different from those of the unfortunate Cueva, who were exterminated during the early years of Spanish colonisation (Romoli 1987; Constenla Uma˜na 1991: 47). 2.5 Cuna 63

Table 2.2 Cuna consonant inventory

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Labiovelar

Stops Simple p t k kw Geminated pp tt kk kkw Affricatec ˇ Fricative s Nasals Simple m n Geminated mm nn Laterals Simple l Geminated ll Vibrant r w y

as the geminate counterpart of s.Asaresult, the two are usually not distinguished in loan words, where cˇ is banned from positions reserved for non-geminates. The sound r is a trill and has no geminate counterpart. It cannot occur in word-initial position, and neither does l,which is automatically replaced by n in that position. The existence of separate labiovelar phonemes kw and kkw is defended in Holmer (1947: 13; 1951: 35) and Sherzer (1975: 49), but rejected by Llerena Villalobos. The existence of an opposition between kue ‘to be, to become’ and kwa (classifier for seed- like objects and also a frequent multifunctional suffix) seems to favour the former position. Sandhi in Cuna mainly consists in the syncope of morpheme-final and word-final vowels and syllables, sometimes accompanied by other processes, such as replacement of l by r (9) and various types of fusion (for an account of the possible changes see Llerena Villalobos 1987: 209–16). Particularly frequent is the suppression of final e in polysyllabic morphemes, when followed by any other morpheme. Voicing may be preserved, even where the triggering intervocalic context has disappeared as a result of syncope (10).

(9) -makke [morm´akke] cloth-prick ‘to sew’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 26) (10) ape-takke [abd´akke] want-see ‘to await’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 216) 64 2 The Chibcha Sphere

When, as a result of syncope, the velar stops k and kk end up in syllable-final position before another (non-velar) consonant, they are often replaced by a high vocalic glide y, as in (11):

(11) pakke-nae-te [payna:de ∼ panya:de] buy-go-TH ‘He went to buy it.’ (Llerena Villalobos 2000: 29)

In spite of its frequency, it is not always predictable whether sandhi will occur or not. Holmer (1951: 41) observes that syncope is highly dependent on register. The use of non-syncopated forms is often found in songs and in ceremonial speech, of crucial importance to Cuna society.Syncopated forms are more frequently found in men’sspeech than in the speech of women and children. In some cases sandhi is obligatory, whereas in other cases it is merely a matter of stylistic variation. The different registers of the Cuna language have been studied by Sherzer (1983) in his work on the ethnography of speech tradition. He observes the use of separate registers for public discourse, daily language and specific rites, such as puberty rites. In the remaining part of this section, the example sentences will be given in their non-syncopated forms, as they are presented in the sources. Cuna is an agglutinating, predominantly suffixing language. The occurrence of pre- fixes is limited to the function of indicating a difference in verbal valency. There are matching pairs of transitive and intransitive verbs differentiated by the initial vowel, e- for the transitives and a- or zero for the intransitives (12)(13).9 In addition, causativisation can be indicated by means of a prefix o- (14).

(12) kwane e-kwane ‘to fall (of fruit)’ ‘to drop (fruit)’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 24) (13) a-tinne e-tinne10 ‘to get tied’ ‘to tie’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 24) (14) purkwe o-purkwe ‘to die’ ‘to kill’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 25)

Verbal morphology expressed by suffixes includes voice (passive), tense, number and directionality. In addition to the directional suffixes, there is a set of verb stems referring to direction. These directional verb stems can be either affixed or used as main verbs

9 This situation is reminiscent of similar paired categories in Chiquitano (see section 4.13.3). 10 Llerena Villalobos (2000: 71) gives a phonetic representation [ett´ınne] for this form, suggesting a geminating effect of the prefix. 2.5 Cuna 65 themselves. Even when affixed, they frequently combine with the directional suffixes, as illustrated in (11) and (15).

(15) se-tani-kki carry-come-H ‘He came to bring it.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 29)

Another set of stems combine the functions of bodily posture with durative aspect and ‘to be’. They can be used either as main verbs or as affixed auxiliaries. For instance, in (16) the stem kwiˇci indicates that the subject performs his action standing.

(16) we sunmakke-kwiˇci-t sayla ospino this speak-stand-N chief Ospino ‘The one who stands there talking is chief Ospino.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 130)

As in Chocoan, personal reference is not expressed morphologically. Subject and object (with verbs) and possessor (with nouns) are all indicated by the same uninflected personal pronouns an ‘first person’, pe ‘second person’ and e ‘third person’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 63–4). Third-person subject is often omitted. The corresponding plural forms are obtained by adding the universal pluraliser -mala, and dual forms by adding -po ‘two’. The personal pronouns accompany verbs on an SOV order basis. When used as possessive pronouns, they must precede the head noun immediately. The same holds for the demonstrative pronouns we ‘this’ and a ‘that’. It should be observed that not all authors agree as to the status of the personal and demonstrative pronouns. Holmer (1946, 1951) treats them as prefixes, thus expanding the prefix inventory of the language, but makes an exception for the plural forms an-mal(a) ‘we’, pe-mal(a)‘you (plural)’, which are clearly independent forms. Adjectives and numerals follow their heads, again as in Chocoan. Cuna has several relational suffixes which together divide the oblique case functions. For instance, -kala indicates possession, destination and beneficiary; -kine locative, ablative, instrument and cause.

(17) an maˇci sayla-kala kue-oe I son chief-DA become-F ‘My son will be a chief.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 47) (18) akkwa-kine makke-sa-mala stone-IS hit-PA-PL ‘They hit him with a stone.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 53) 66 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Cuna has a series of numeral classifiers based mainly on shapes and measures (Sherzer 1978). Even though there are special classifiers for fish and personal adornments, there is none for human beings. These are classified among the long objects (wala- ∼ war-). The numerals and the stem for ‘how many?’ (-pikwa) are suffixed to the numeral classifier, which itself follows the noun it classifies, as in (19):

(19) maˇci-mala wala-pikwapenikka son-PL CL-how.many you have ‘How many children do you have?’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 67)

Cuna has a great variety of compounds, including verb–verb compounds and combina- tions of verbs with an incorporated object; e.g. mas-kunne ‘to eat’ (from masi ‘banana’, ‘food’ and kunne ‘to chew’); kap-takke ‘to dream’ (from kape ‘to sleep’ and takke ‘to see’) (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 25–6). A more complex form is op-nake-t-akkwa ‘millstone’ (from opa ‘maize’; nake- ‘to grind’; -t ‘nominaliser’, and akkwa ‘stone’) (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 37). There are borrowed words not only from Spanish (kannira ‘chicken’, from Sp. gallina), but also from English; e.g. mani ‘money’; waˇci ‘time, hour (watch)’.

2.6 The languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta The languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, also known as the Arhuacan lan- guages (not to be confused with Arawakan; cf. Shafer 1962), form a group of mutually related languages of undisputed Chibchan affiliation. There are three living languages, which are known under several names. The Ika language is spoken in the southern part of the mountain massif (departments of Cesar and Magdalena) by some 14,000 people also known as Arhuaco or B´ıntukua (Arango and S´anchez 1998). The Ika are well known for their dynamic organisation and level of political awareness. Their principal centre is the town of Nabus´ımake (former San Sebasti´an de R´abago). North of the Ika, in the highest part of the Sierra Nevada (departments of Cesar, La Guajira and Magdalena), some 9,000 traditional Kogui or K´aggaba are speakers of the Kogui language, called Kougian in Kogui, and Peibu in Ika (Frank 1990: 41). The Kogui are an individualis- tic people, known for their inaccessibility and religious conservatism. Their principal ceremonial centre is Macotama. The third language of the Sierra Nevada, Damana,is found in the eastern and northeastern part of the Sierra Nevada (departments of Cesar and la Guajira). The approximately 2,000 speakers of Damana are less numerous than the Ika and the Kogui. As an ethnic group they are known by no less than six dif- ferent names: Arsario, Guamaca, Malayo, Marocasero, Sanj´a or Sank´a, and Wiwa; see Trillos Amaya (1989: 15–17) for a discussion of the respective merits of all these names. 2.6 Languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 67

In spite of the fact that the Sierra Nevada people have been successful in preserv- ing their languages and traditions, they have felt the constant pressure of non-native colonisation. In addition to the three nations mentioned so far, a fourth group the Kankuamo, located near the town of At´anquez (Cesar) lost its identity in the twen- tieth century. Its language, Kanku´ı, closely related to Damana, is no longer spoken, although some people claim knowledge of it (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000). In order to escape colonisation and preserve their secluded life the Kogui have had to abandon most of the lower strata of their original habitat. The sixteenth-century Tairona,who occupied the area east of Santa Marta, were almost certainly part of the Arhuacan culture complex. It is likely that survivors of the Tairona group sought refuge with the Kogui after their defeat in 1600. It is not known to what extent the languages spoken by the Kogui and Tairona differed. The religious leaders of the Kogui claim knowledge of a ceremonial language called T´eiˇzua, and it is tempting to interpret this as a relict of Tairona. Land- aburu (1994: 375) mentions that the speakers of Damana also have a sacred language called Terruna shayama. The survival of the cultural and linguistic identity of the Arhuacan peoples is largely due to the strength of their traditional authorities and spiritual leaders, the mama (‘grand- fathers’), who distribute their knowledge at ceremonial temples known as kankurua.11 They have successfully fought the influence from outside, in particular, missionary ac- tivity. The native languages are part of the traditional values they seek to protect. At the same time, mama refuse to take part in formal education (Trillos Amaya 2000: 750). Some actively discourage the learning of Spanish, in particular by women. On the other hand, multilingualism seems to be the rule in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Due to mixed marriages and contact, many people speak several languages (especially Damana and Kogui), and some know as many as four languages. Since the pioneering work by Celed´on (1886), Preuss (1921–5), Holmer (1953) and Reichel-Dolmatoff (1950–1, 1989), the study of the Arhuacan languages has developed considerably. The Ika language has been the object of studies by Frank (1985, 1990) and Landaburu (1988, 1992, 1996b, 2000a). The Damana language is treated in Trillos Amaya (1989, 1994, 1999, 2000). There are partial studies of Kogui in Ortiz Ricaurte (1989, 1994, 2000) and in Olaya Perdomo (2000). Each of the three languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta has a clearly distinct character. Among them, the Kogui language is most conservative and particularly well suited for historical comparison with other Chibchan languages. Its nominal derivational morphology, involving several old classifying elements, is quite elaborate; see Ortiz Ricaurte (2000) for an inventory.

11 Knkurwa,anIka word; cf. Landaburu (1988: 163) and Trillos Amaya (2000: 749). 68 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.3 Overview of the consonant inventories of the Arhuacan languages

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal

Stops Voiceless p t k ʔ**** Voiced b d g Affricates Voicelessc ˇ Voiced dzˇ * Fricatives Voiceless ss** ˇ h** Voiced w zz ˇ Nasals m n [ŋ]***** Vibrants Simple r* Multiple rr*** Laterals l**

* not in Kogui, ** marginal or absent in Ika, *** only in Damana, **** not in Damana, ***** only in Ika

However, many of the characteristics that are of interest in a general survey like the present one coincide and, therefore, justify a combined treatment. All the Arhuacan languages have voiceless and voiced stops: p, b; t, d; k, g (intervocalic k is realised as a fricative [x] in Kogui). They also distinguish between voiceless and voiced alveodental sibilants: s, z. The distinction between voiceless and voiced palatal sibilants (sˇ, zˇ)isfound in all three languages, with the observation that sˇ is marginal in Ika. Furthermore, a voiceless palatal affricate cˇ occurs in all three languages, its voiced counterpart d zˇ being limited to Damana and Ika. The glottal stop (ʔ ) plays an important role in Ika, a marginal one in Kogui, and it is absent from Damana. Conversely, the velar or glottal fricative h is frequent in Damana and Kogui, but marginal in Ika. As far as the vibrants and laterals are concerned, Damana stands out with three distinct sounds: lateral l, simple vibrant r, and multiple vibrant rr. Ika only has r, and Kogui only has l. All three languages have labial and alveodental nasals (m, n); the latter assimilates to the articulation place of a following stop. In Ika the velar nasalŋ can occur between vowels at morpheme boundaries, and may thus be interpreted as a separate, albeit peripheral phoneme. Ika has a bilabial w,which is pronounced fricatively [β], except before a.Itisalso found in Damana, where a fricative realisation obtains between vowels. Its absence from the consonant inventory of Kogui (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000) seems to be the result of different analyses; cf. Ika wak,Kogui uaka [w´axa] ‘fish’. Table 2.3 contains a combined representation of the consonant inventories of Damana, Ika and Kogui. Consonant clusters can be found in initial position (stop + r in Ika; sibilant + stop in Kogui). In these cases there is often a suppressed vowel that can be restored even 2.6 Languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 69 synchronically. All Arhuacan languages have labiovelar consonants (kw, gw). These are generally not treated as separate phonemes in the available descriptions, but as consonant clusters or consonant–vowel sequences. In Ika most syllable-final stops are disallowed, and the number of consonant-clusters is limited. Prevocalic k in Ika often corresponds with a glottal stop in word- or syllable-final position, e.g. nak-a ‘to come’ (perfective participle) vs. naʔ (indefinite participle) (Landaburu 2000: 743); cf. also Ika aʔn ‘stone’, Kogui hag-, hagi; Ika kaʔ ‘earth’, Kogui kag-, kagi. The vowel inventory is basically the same in all three languages and consists of six basic vowels: a, e, i, o, u and a sixth vowel ,which has been described as a central vowel [ə]inDamana and in Ika, and as an unrounded high []inKogui. For Ika, Frank (1990) recognises two central vowels, high central and mid central [ə], instead of one, but admits that their distribution is largely predictable. Damana has an additional nasal vowel u˜ of unclear status (Trillos Amaya 2000: 751). Vocalic nasality is also found in Kogui, where it is limited to a small number of instances (e.g. hay˜u´ ‘coca’), including very few minimal pairs (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000: 760). Stress is largely predictable in Damana and Ika, but distinctive in Kogui. The morphophonology and morphosyntax of the Arhuacan languages stand out on account of their great complexity and highly unusual character. In the context of this chapter we can only mention a few examples, referring to the literature mentioned above for a fuller picture. The Arhuacan languages are mainly verb-final with a preferred word order of subject–object–verb. Adjectives follow the substantive they modify, whereas genitive modifiers and possessors precede it. In Ika many adjectives in postnominal modifier position are followed by a nominalised verb kaw-a ‘seeming’ in a sort of adjective phrase reminiscent of a relative clause.

(20) dˇze k kaw-a water cold seem-N ‘cold water’ (Frank 1990: 32)

Nouns and noun phrases can receive case markers, as illustrated by the following example from Damana, where -ˇze indicates genitive and -rga allative case:

(21) ra-n-ˇze ade te-rga I-EU-G father field-AL ‘My father is in the field (has gone to the field).’ (Trillos Amaya 2000: 753)

Pronominal possession is often expressed by a genitive phrase. In addition, prefixed possessive markers indicating personal reference also occur. Prefixed are fre- quently found with kinship terms, but not exclusively. Kogui, for instance, has two ways to express the notion ‘my house’, with a prefix and by means of a genitive construction; see example (22). The full word form for ‘house’, hu-´ı, contains a petrified suffix element 70 2 The Chibcha Sphere

-´ı,which can be suppressed both in compounds (e.g. h´u-kala ‘roof of house’) and in inflected forms (e.g. na-h´u).12

(22) na-h´u na-h´ı hu-´ı 1P.SG-house 1.SG-G house-LS ‘my house’ ‘my house’ (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000: 765)

Subject and object are not obligatorily marked for case. Nevertheless, Ika has a locative case marker -seʔ,which can be added to the agent–subject of a transitive verb in an ergative function. This marker can remove doubts as to which constituent plays the role of subject in a transitive construction. It is used, for instance, when the subject stands immediately before the verb, either because there is no overtly expressed object, or because the prevalent SOV order has been modified for pragmatic or other reasons. The marker -seʔ is frequently found in combination with a topicalising suffix -ri.Foran extensive discussion of the use of both suffixes see Frank (1990: 115–34).

(23) maikən per-ri ∅-kə-g-a na gwiadzˇ ina-seʔ-ri three dog-TO 3O-DA-eat-N be/past13 puma-E-TO ‘The puma ate his three dogs.’ (Frank 1990: 116)

Verbs in Arhuacan languages often exhibit a set of competing stems which can differ in their final consonants and internal vowels. Several types of nominalised and non- finite verb forms are derived from these stems. The morphosyntax of the Arhuacan languages is furthermore characterised by an extensive use of auxiliary verbs, which may appear in strings following a main verb. The choice of the appropriate form both for non-independent main verbs and for auxiliaries depends on the auxiliary that follows. In Ika the verb phrase is regularly ended by a suffix indicating the epistemic status of the sentence (validation), whereas in Kogui prefixes fulfill such a role. Auxiliary verbs may carry the morphology that cannot be accomodated on the main verb, but in other cases their presence is merely pragmatic or serves the purpose of refining temporal and aspectual distinctions. A characteristic case in which a morpho- logical element is transferred from the main verb to an auxiliary is negation. In Ika the negative marker -uʔ is suffixed to the root of a main verb, creating some sort of negative participle; the latter is followed by a form of nan ‘to be’. In example (24) the main verb

12 The bound form hu- coincides with a widespread Chibchan root for ‘house’. The conservative character of Kogui appears clearly in the Chibchan reconstructions presented in Constenla Uma˜na (1993: 111–13). For the suffix -´ı see also Constenla Uma˜na (1981: 362). 13 The element na has received two interpretations, (1) that of a ‘distal’ past marker (Frank 1990: 63–4); and (2) that of a nominalised form of the verb nan ‘to be’. According to Landaburu (2000), it acts as an auxiliary verb in indefinite past forms. 2.6 Languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 71 is cwaˇ ‘to see’; when -uʔ is attached to it, it becomes c-uˇ ʔ. Before the suffix -w- the appropriate stem for the auxilary verb ‘to be’ is nar-.14

(24) c-uˇ ʔ nar-w-in see-NE be-1S.SG-DV ‘I do not see.’ (Landaburu 2000: 743)

The expression in (24) can be made more complex by adding a form of the auxiliary verb u/aw- ‘to do’, ‘to have’, as in (25). The negative participle of u/aw-isa-uʔ:

(25) cwaˇ a-uʔ nar-w-in see have-NE be-1S.SG-DV ‘I have not seen.’ (Landaburu 2000: 743)

Personal reference marking in the Arhuacan languages is remarkable for the num- ber of syntactic roles that can be expressed. In Ika Landaburu (1992: 12; 2000a: 740) distinguishes as many as five formal possibilities. These are subject, direct object (ac- cusative), indirect object (dative), beneficiary and possession acted upon. Non-subject personal reference is indicated by means of prefixes. The latter consist of more or less constant elements accompanied by an additional marker identifying the syntactic role (dative, beneficiary, etc.). Fusion of the respective elements occurs. The non-subject roles can be expressed in combination with the subject role, but they cannot be combined with each other within a single verb form. The distinction between non-subject roles in the verb form is all the more important due to the fact that many Arhuacan verbs are im- personal, their main participant being encoded as accusative, dative, etc. Example (26) from Damana illustrates the combined use of subject and accusative markers.

(26) m-n-paˇs-ka 2S.SG-1O.SG-beat-FM.2S.SG ‘You beat me.’ (Trillos Amaya 1989: 54)

The subject marker in (26) is a prefix, but it is accompanied in Damana by a suffix -ka (-ga after monosyllabic roots beginning with k, z or zˇ), which plays an accessory role in the identification of the subject. Its primary function is that of a marker of a factual mood, indicating the general validity of the stated event. It varies according to person and number, the form -ka being limited to third-person subjects and second-person-singular subjects. Dative marking with an impersonal verb (zˇn- ‘to dream’) is illustrated in (27).

14 In Landaburu’sanalysis, the reference of -w- to a first-person-singular subject is not the primary, but rather a derived function of that suffix, which he defines as an ‘intralocutive’. It denotes a combination of speaker–subject and present tense. After roots ending in -k/-ʔ its allomorph is -kw-; see example (30) below. 72 2 The Chibcha Sphere

The choice of the prefix mi- identifies it as dative, not accusative; there is no special marker for third-person subject.

(27) mi-n-ˇzn-ga 2.SG.DA-EU-dream-FM.3S ‘You dream.’ (lit. ‘Dream comes to you.’) (Trillos Amaya 1989: 54)

A comparable example from Kogui (28) shows the use of a special dative marker -k-, which follows the person marker. The impersonal verb is nuni ‘to want’. The initial n of the stem changes to l according to a frequent morphophonemic rule of the Kogui language.

(28) big´ıˇza na-k-l´uni pineapple 1O.SG-DA-want ‘I want a pineapple.’ (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000: 774)

Accusative marking with an impersonal verb can be observed in example (29) from Ika. It is followed by (30), which illustrates a verb form with a beneficiary marker. (The auxiliary verb nuk (∼nuʔ ) ‘to be’ in combination with the nominalisation in -n expresses a progressive form.) The future tense in Ika is expressed by an impersonal auxiliary verb -ŋgwa.Itobligatorily takes an accusative object marker that refers to the actor. The auxiliary verb -ŋgwa is preceded by the imperfective participle (in -n)ofthe verb it dominates (31).

(29) n-aʔtikuma na 1O.SG-forget be/past ‘I forgot.’ (Frank 1990: 9) (30) akusa win-i-zas-nnuʔ-kw-in [Spanish aguja ‘needle’] needle 3O.PL-BN-save-N be-1S.SG-DV ‘I am saving needles for them.’ (Frank 1990: 71) (31) pinna dzˇ una was-nn-ŋgwa all kind chase-N 1O.SG-F ‘I will chase all kinds (of animals).’ (Frank 1990: 61)

The interplay of prefixes and suffixes referring to person of subject is illustrated in (32) by means of the factual (habitual) mood paradigm of the verb buˇs- ‘to spin’ in Damana (Trillos Amaya 1989: 87): 2.6 Languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 73

(32) 1S.SG buˇs-uga ‘I spin’ 1S.PL buˇs-kurra ‘we spin’ 2S.SG m-buˇs-ka ‘you (sg.) spin’ 2S.PL m-buˇs-kwa ‘you (pl.) spin’ 3S.SG buˇs-ka ‘he/she spins’ 3S.PL yi-buˇs-ka ‘they spin’

The Damana affixes for virtual (non-realised) and real (realised) mood are inserted between the root and the variable suffix, as in buˇs-n-kurra ‘we may spin’ or m -buˇs- an-ka ‘you spun’. In Ika the interplay of subject-marking prefixes and corresponding suffixes that also convey such meaning is even more subtle, because the latter are selected on the basis of deictic distinctions involving both personal reference and tense. Further temporal distinctions are made explicit by variation in the stems to which the suffixes can be attached. For a detailed discussion of this complicated part of Ika verbal morphology see Landaburu (1988, 1992, 2000a); cf. also Frank (1990: 63–6). The system of Damana and Ika pronouns and object markers is based on the distinction of three persons and singular or plural number. At the least in its set of possessive markers Kogui expresses a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural. The form sn- ‘our (exclusive)’ reflects a Chibchan first-person-plural marker not recorded in the other Arhuacan languages.15 Its inclusive counterpart na-wi- is the regularly derived plural of the first-person-singular marker na-.Inother contexts the element sn- is used indistinctively both for inclusive and exclusive (33).

(33) gaik´a-li ni ub´ıˇsa sn-ka-l´ai snow.mountain-L water much 1O.PL-DA-be ‘On the snow-capped mountain we have a lot of water.’ (Olaya Perdomo 2000: 782)

Some valency-changing processes show a clear affinity with other Chibchan lan- guages (cf. section 2.5 on Cuna). It is the case in example (34), where u- is a transitiviser, and (35), where a- is an intransitiviser.16 The examples are from Kogui. (The substi- tution of stem-initial consonants is part of a regular morphophonemic alternation; cf. also (28).)

15 Constenla Uma˜na (1981: 430) reconstructs *se˜´ʔ for Proto-Chibchan on the basis of the Talamancan (Costa Rican) languages Bribri, Cab´ecar and T´erraba. 16 A Chibchan language of Central America (Honduras) that uses the prefix u- as a transitiviser is Paya (see Holt 1989). 74 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(34) n´aˇsi ‘to come’ u-l´aˇsi ‘to bring’ (Olaya Perdomo 2000: 781) (35) gwaˇ´si ‘to kill’ a-kwaˇ´si ‘to kill oneself’ (Constenla Uma˜na 1990: 117)

In Ika causative derivation can be achieved by adding a suffix -s- to the root, usually in combination with further morphophonemic adaptations; cf. (36) and (37). Another strategy consists in raising the root-vowel with simultaneous replacement of root-final -n- by -ŋ- (Frank 1990: 66–7); cf. (38).

(36) kmma- ‘to sleep’ kmma-s- ‘to cause to sleep’ (37) aruk- ‘to go up’ aru-s- ‘to lift’ (38) con-ˇ ‘to enter’ cuˇ ŋ- ‘to let someone enter’

Also in relation to Ika, Frank (1990: 55) lists a series of transitive verbs differing semantically by the shape of the object that is handled (39). Similarly, intransitive verbs referring to position may differ according to the shape of the subject (40).

(39) gaka ‘to place long and thin objects’ sa ‘to place three-dimensional objects’ pan ‘to place flat objects’ coˇ ʔ ‘to place things with an upright position’ (40) aʔ-gei-kwa ‘to be in (of long objects)’ aʔ-pn-kwa ‘to be in (of flat objects)’ aʔ-ni-kwa ‘to be in (of three-dimensional objects)’ aʔ-nuk ‘to be in (of upright objects)’

Arhuacan languages have fully developed numeral systems formed on a basis. As Constenla Uma˜na (1988) has pointed out, some of the Arhuacan numerals contain petrified classifier elements also found in other Chibchan languages. One of them is *kwa2 ‘seed’, for instance, in Kogui m´aigwa ‘three’, k´ugwa ‘seven’, ug´ wa ‘ten’, m´uˇzugwa ‘twenty’. The Arhuacan languages have several lexical borrowings from Spanish, some of which are quite old. An example is Damana turruma,Kogui tuluma, from Spanish turma,anearly term for ‘potato’ that was widely used in New Granada. Damana galina [galyina] ‘chicken’ (Spanish gallina) and paka ‘cow’ (Spanish vaca) are evident loans. In spite of their isolation the Kogui have adopted a few characteristic loan words, such as k´alta ‘book’, ‘paper’ (from Spanish carta) and gw´ıbu ‘egg’ (from Spanish huevo). Avery important cultural term is kw´ıbulu or kw´ıbulo,which refers to the traditional Kogui village. Although it is perfectly adapted to Kogui pronunciation, it does not seem far-fetched to derive its etymology from Spanish pueblo ‘village’. 2.7 Chimila 75

2.7 Chimila The Chimila language (or Ette Taara)isspoken by the descendants of a once numerous population (Ette Ennaka) inhabiting the space situated between the lower Magdalena river to the west and southwest, and the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the Cesar river to the east. The strategic centre of the Chimila homeland was formed by the Ariguan´ıriver valley, which constitutes the border of the modern departments of Cesar and Magdalena. During the conquest the Chimila were much feared because of their use of poisoned arrows. They were referred to as ‘Caribs’ (Hemming 1978: 70; cf. section 2.1). In reality, the Chimila speak a language of the Chibchan family. About 1720 the Chimila people, exasperated by the excesses of colonisation, began a guerrilla war that was conducted with great cruelty on both sides (Chaves et al. 1995: 127–34). Although this war reached its highest intensity in the eighteenth century, ruth- less violence against the Chimila aiming at their extermination continued until well into the twentieth century. In 1990 the last traumatised and largely assimilated survivors were assigned a small reservation called Issa Oristuna, near San Angel (Magdalena), which harbours some eighty families (Trillos Amaya 1997: 25). The language, which had been practised in secret for a long time, is now spoken more openly, but field research is still difficult due to the Chimila’s understandable distrust of outsiders. The total number of Chimila is estimated at 900 (Arango and S´anchez 1998). In 1947 the anthropologist Reichel-Dolmatoff published an article on the Chimila language, summarised in Mel´endez Lozano (2000a). The information on Chimila con- tained in the present study is based on Trillos Amaya (1997). She provides a very good and honest impression of the language, admitting that many of the analyses offered must remain provisional for lack of data. Trillos Amaya respected the restrictions set by the community upon her fieldwork in the expectation of a more open attitude that may develop over the coming years. The phonology of Chimila still retains several unsolved questions. According to Trillos Amaya (1997: 66), its five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) can be short, long, interrupted (glottalised) and aspirated. Monosyllabic words ending in a long vowel can bear contrastive tone, e.g. t´o: ‘maraca (a musical instrument)’ with rising tone, versus t`o: ‘heart’ with descending tone. Polysyllabic words contain a tone-bearing syllable of which the tone appears to be partly determined by the nature of a following consonant (descending tone before geminates and r, rising tone before non-geminate obstruents). In Trillos Amaya’s study, tonal distinctions are not indicated except for a few relevant pairs in the phonological chapter (Trillos Amaya 1997: 75–6). The consonant inventory comprises a series of voiceless oral stops and affricates (p, t, cˇ, k), a prenasalised series (mb, nd, ndzˇ, ŋg) and a nasal series (m, n, ny, ŋ). In addition, there is a voiced stop (g) and a voiced affricate (dzˇ). All these oppositions are fairly well exploited, e.g. ka: ‘breast’, ga: ‘excrement’, ŋga: ‘wing, feather’, ŋa:` ‘to hoist up’, 76 2 The Chibcha Sphere

ŋa:´ ‘to lie down’. All the velar sounds have labiovelar counterparts (kw, gw, ŋw, ŋgw) The remaining consonants are a lateral l,apreglottalised tap r, the laminal and velar fricatives s and h, and an approximant w. Syllable-initial consonant clusters may consist of a stop + r.Inclusters after velar consonants r is pronounced as a uvular trill. Most consonants (not the prenasalised ones, and not h, r, w)have tense or geminate counterparts. Gemination appears to be an automatic process, occurring after a stressed short vowel. Nevertheless, gemination is sometimes found more than once in a word (even in consecutive syllables), and Trillos Amaya mentions the case of suffix pairs in which gemination appears to be contrastive, as in (41):

(41) ki:ro-tikwi ki:ro-tikkwi chicken-PL.DI chicken-not.fully.grown ‘small chickens’ ‘small chick’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 75)

The interaction between gemination, vowel length, accent and tone in Chimila is a field that requires further investigation. Some of these aspects are discussed in Malone (1997–8). As might be expected, Chimila shares a number of characteristics with the related languages of the Arhuacan group, with which it has been in contact over centuries. As in Ika, some verbs exhibit internal stem variation depending on the affixes with which they are combined.

(42) kenne-riddzˇ akonni-ddzˇ a eat-AG eat-PS.N ‘eater’ ‘food’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 83–4)

Most conspicuous among these similarities is the use of a set of auxiliary verbs, which follow nominalised or otherwise non-finite main verbs. The selection of a particular auxiliary verb (here glossed as ‘be’ or ‘do’) may reflect tense or mood distinctions, but in many cases there appears to be no clear semantic distinction that determines the choice. The matter requires further research. Finite verbs must either be specified as declarative or interrogative. The following examples illustrate the use of auxiliaries and the declarative marker -(t)te.

(43) hoggwa17 ŋa-∅-tte bathe be-3S.SG-DV ‘He bathes.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 157)

17 Trillos Amaya suggests that the final vowel in a full verb, such as hoggwa, has an aspectual function. Note that verbs such as hoggwa in constructions with an auxiliary verb must also be nominalised. If not, it may be necessary to reinterpret the auxiliary verb stems as suffixes. Considering that the relevant information is imprecise and insufficient, we will not represent aspect and (covert) nominalisation in our glosses. 2.7 Chimila 77

Table 2.4 Possessive modifiers in Chimila (from Trillos Amaya 1997: 126)

Singular Dual Plural

1 pers. naʔ na na-ra 2 pers. maʔ ma ma-ra 3 pers. nih ni nih-ne

(44) hoggwadzˇ a-∅-tte bathe do-3S.SG-DV ‘He will bathe’. (Trillos Amaya 1997: 157)

When directly affixed to a noun, the declarative marker -(t)te indicates that the noun is used predicatively (45).

(45) iŋŋŋŋa-te smoke-DV ‘It is smoke.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 161)

In contrast to the Arhuacan languages, Chimila is predominantly or entirely suffixing. The language has a set of possessive personal reference markers, which are prefix-like elements encoding the distinctions of first, second and third person, as well as singular, dual and plural number. In spite of the syntactic limitations, there are arguments to consider these possessive markers as free forms, rather than as prefixes. As a matter of fact, a numeral can intervene between a possessive marker and the noun it modifies (46).18

(46) naʔ mbuhna oggwe 1P.SG two child ‘my two children’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 141)

Possessive constructions are obtained by the juxtaposition of a possessive marker, the possessed and the possessor in that order. No genitive case marker occurs.

(47) nih oggwe taki:riddzˇ aʔ o 3P.SG child chief ‘the son of the chief’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 127)

In the verb personal reference and number are indicated by means of suffixes. These suffixes bear no formal relationship to the possessive markers. There are different sets

18 Compare the case of the Araucanian possessive markers in chapter 5. 78 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.5 Personal reference markers for subject and object in Chimila (based on Trillos Amaya 1997: 123, 125, 163)

Subject markers Subject markers in negation Object markers Singular Dual Plural Singular Non-singular Singular Non-singular

1 -n -ŋkre -ŋkre-mbre -na -na-ŋkre -nu -nu-ra 2 -uka -uka-ra -uka-ra-mbre -ka -ka-ra -dzˇu ∼ -ˇcu -dzˇu-ra 3 -Ø -(n)ne -(n)ne-mbre -Ø -ne -wi -(n)ne

for the identification of subject and object, respectively. In addition, there is a sep- arate set of personal reference markers used to indicate the subject in a negation. Table 2.5 represents the three sets of verbal personal markers that refer to subject and object. As can be seen in table 2.5, the category plural for subject markers is systematically distinguished from the dual by the addition of a plural marker -mbre. This marker -mbre is also used to indicate plural with nouns. It can be left out, so that the difference between plural and dual is not always overtly expressed. In the third person plural the order of the suffixes represented in table 2.5 is not always respected, for instance, in dzˇuŋŋa- mbre-nne-tte ‘they (more than two) walk’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 123). The elements -ŋkre, -ra and -(n)ne are non-singular markers, with functions limited to the pronominal system. Object markers have only been found in verbs with a third-person subject (49). The scarce examples of use recorded so far do not yet allow a full appreciation of the possibilities. In negative sentences personal reference markers referring to first- and second-person subject are attached to the adverbial negation marker dzˇumma, not to the verb itself (50). By contrast, the third-person non-singular marker -ne is attached to the main verb, not to the negative dzˇumma (51).

(48) kenne ka-uka-ra-tte eat be-2S-D-DV ‘The two of you eat.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 124) (49) ce:-riˇ seddzˇ akoʔ -dzˇ u-∅-tte money-DA give be-2O-3S.SG-DV ‘He gave you money.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 109) (50) dzˇ umma-ka dzˇ uŋŋŋŋa not-2S.SG walk ‘You do not walk.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 163) 2.7 Chimila 79

(51) dzˇ umma dzˇ uŋŋŋŋa-ne not walk-3S.PL ‘They do not walk.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 163)

The noun morphology of Chimila displays an elaborate inventory of case markers and postpositions with a particular emphasis on spatial distinctions and types of association. Strings of case markers referring to spatial relations occur; in (52), for instance, the case marker -ŋa refers to ‘action within a space’, whereas -(s)sa implies a previous motion into that space.

(52) ummaŋenta ka-∅-tte assu ndiddzˇ o-ŋa-ssa become.quiet be-3S-DV only rain-L-AL ‘He only became quiet under the rain.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 115)

Both subject and object can remain unmarked in a constituent order which is predom- inantly SVO. An ergative–dative case marker -ri is available for the purpose of marking off the actor of a transitive verb from its object, as illustrated in (53). However, in (49) we have seen that -ri can also mark a direct object, when there is no independent expression of either the subject or a dative. The matter requires further investigation.

(53) noggwe-ri assu tukku wi-∅-tte kawi-manta he-E only see do-3S-DV cabildo-LS ‘He only saw the cabildo.’19 (Trillos Amaya 1997: 108)

Chimila has a set of numeral classifiers: gwa- for round objects; ti:- for long objects; kra:- for corncobs; mbri:- for animals and clothing. As in Cuna, these are prefixed to the numerals.

(54) ti:-muhna CL-two ‘two pencils, bananas, etc.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 139) (55) mbri:-mahna CL-three ‘three animals, clothes, etc.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 139)

The Chibchan affinity with Chimila is not only clearly evident from its lexicon, but also from its frequent use of the lexical suffixes -kwa/-gwa and -kra; for instance, in kak-kwa ‘mouth’, wa:-kwa ‘eye’, rug-gwa ‘neck’; ha:-kra ‘head’, kik-kra ‘bone’. These

19 Cabildo: traditional administrative board of an indigenous community. The element -manta is translated as ‘skin’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 86–8). Its function in this particular context remains obscure. 80 2 The Chibcha Sphere elements reflect the classifiers *kua2 ‘seed’ and *kara3 ‘bone, stick’ reconstructed for the proto-language by Constenla Uma˜na (1990).20

2.8 Bar´ı The Bar´ıorDobocub´ı occupy an area at the border between Colombia and Venezuela corresponding to the southern part of the Sierra de Perij´a (department of Norte de Santander in Colombia and state of Zulia in Venezuela). Together with their neighbours to the north, the Cariban Yukpa, the Bar´ıwere traditionally referred to as Motilones ‘shaven heads’. Due to their hostile attitude towards outsiders and, among other things, their resistance to oil prospectors working in the area, the Bar´ıwere known as Motilones bravos ‘wild Motilones’ in contrast to the Yukpa, who were called mansos ‘tame’. The Bar´ı inhabit thirteen villages on the Colombian side, as well as a number of villages in Venezuela. In Colombia their number is estimated at approximately 3,500 (Arango and S´anchez 1998). The Bar´ı language, which belongs to the Chibchan family, has only recently begun to be studied (Mogoll´on P´erez 2000). The vocabularies of Catarroja and Guti´errez published by Rivet and Armellada (1950) have only a few words in common with the more recently collected data. Like its Proto-Chibchan ancestor, Bar´ıisatonal language. Two basic tone levels, low and non-low, are distinguished. The non-low tone is subject to some subtonemic variation. No examples are provided of tonal contrast between vowels that are part of the same root.

(56) k´abb´u ‘he sleeps’ k`abb`u ‘heron’ (Mogoll´on P´erez 2000: 724)

Noun phrases display special internal tonal patterns, which suggest grammatical func- tions such as ‘genitive’ or ‘subordination’. No further grammatical markers specifying the relation appear to be used. Modifiers precede the modified in a genitive construction, but follow their heads in a noun–adjective combination.

(57) c´ˇıd´u´u´abb´ı [ˇc¯ıd¯u:abb¯ ¯ ı] snake blood ‘snake blood’ (Mogoll´on P´erez 2000: 724) (58) c´ˇıd´u´u`abb`ı`ı [ˇc¯ıd¯u:abb¯ ` ı`:] snake big ‘big snake’ (Mogoll´on P´erez 2000: 724)

20 The superscript numbers 2 and 3 in the reconstructed forms refer to mid and high tone, respec- tively (Constenla Uma˜na 1989: 37). 2.9 The Muisca language 81

The Bar´ı language distinguishes six oral (a, e, i, , o, u) and six nasal vowels (a˜, e˜, ˜ , ˜, o˜, u˜). Long vowels are interpreted by Mogoll´on P´erez as sequences of same vowels and tone-bearing segments, rather than as single phonemes. Bar´ı has a small, asymmetrical consonant inventory, which consists of four stops (b, t, d, k), two fricatives (h, s), one true nasal (m), a multiple vibrant (rr), and two variable resonants. In Mogoll´on P´erez (2000) these resonants were classified as nasals (n, ny). However, a fully nasal realisation ([n], [ny]) is found in one specific environment only, namely, in word-initial position before a nasal vowel. Elsewhere, they are either oral ([r], [y]), or slightly nasalised. As a matter of fact, the least environmentally influenced allophones of the two resonant phonemes are non-nasal; e.g. in /nyinu/ [yiru] ‘yesterday’. The opposition of the alveodental resonant [r], which is found between two oral vowels, and the multiple vibrant rr is that of two vibrants; e.g. /kinu/ [kiru] ‘to spin’ versus /kiru/ [kirru] ‘to rub with .’ Alveodental consonants have palatal allophones before high front vowels, as could be seen in examples (57) and (58). Geminate consonants and consonant clusters of two consonants occur frequently at syllable boundaries, and most combinations are permitted. Within a syllable the only consonant cluster found occasionally is that of a stop followed by an alveodental resonant, e.g. [tr], in syllable-initial position. This fact and the contrast between the two vibrants are both Chibchan and northern Colombian areal features shared by Bar´ı.

2.9 The Muisca language The importance of the Muisca or Mosca language (in Muisca: muysc cubun [mwsk kuβun] ‘language of the Indians’) in the sixteenth century can be measured from the amount of descriptive material prepared in the colonial period. In 1538 the high plain of Boyac´aand Cundinamarca was densely populated by speakers of Muisca and related dialects. In spite of the fact that the Spanish colonial authorities and clergy were aware of the linguistic diversity in the area, they chose Muisca as a so-called ‘general language’ (lengua general )tobeused for administration and evangelisation. A chair for Muisca was established in Santaf´edeBogot´ain1582. The first chairholder was a parish priest called Gonzalo Berm´udez (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1980: 60–75). In the meantime, the practicability of Muisca as a general language remained a matter of contention. Apparently, history put the opponents in the right, as the language died out during the eighteenth century. According to Uricoechea (1871: xliv), the language was no longer spoken in 1765. The degree of linguistic diversity found in the Muisca realm becomes evident from observations of chroniclers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about varieties spoken in the Boyac´a and Cundinamarca high- lands, other than Muisca itself. The only specimen of Duit, the language of Boyac´a, is a fragment of a catechism published and analysed by Uricoechea (1871), who reports that this was only a sample of a larger document to which he had . He, furthermore, 82 2 The Chibcha Sphere affirms that it was written in the language of , which in his opinion was different from that of Tunja, the capital of Boyac´a. It is unfortunate that the Duit document used by Uricoechea was never located after his death. Uricoechea’s Duit was a distinct language, clearly related to Muisca, but probably not on a level of . An interesting element of Duit is the frequent occurrence of r,asound rarely found in Muisca. Correspondences between Duit r,on the one hand, and Muisca s [s,s] ˇ or z [ts], on the other, occur; e.g. Duit sir, Muisca sis(y) [sis() ∼ sis(ˇ )] ‘this’; Duit pcuare, Muisca pquahaza [pkwahatsa] ‘lightning’. Constenla Uma˜na (1984: 87) furthermore observes a coincidence of dialectal r with standard Muisca ch [ty], as can be distilled from place names and local borrowings of the native language into Spanish. For instance, in the Spanish–Muisca vocabulary contained in the anonymous manuscript no. 158 of the Colombian National Library (see below) the Muisca version of the name of the town of Zipaquir´aisgiven as Chicaquicha.21 As we shall see, the treatment of r is also an element of differentiation between the sources for the Muisca language itself. Another interesting observation made by Uricoechea (1871: xlii) concerns the ex- istence around 1600 of a mixed dialect of Spanish and Muisca, which he calls jitano (‘gipsy’). He provides a few examples, such as hicabai for ‘horse’ (Spanish caballo) and zebos for ‘lover’ (Spanish mancebo). Unfortunately, no source is mentioned for Uricoechea’s jitano data.

2.9.1 Sources Of the many grammatical studies dealing with the Muisca language mentioned in the historical sources only three are known to have survived. One of these studies is the work of a Dominican and scholar of the Muisca language, Bernardo de Lugo (1619); the two others have no known authors. Lugo’s work has been the subject of a modern facsimile edition with an introduction by Alvar (1978). The two anonymous gram- mars belong to a different tradition from Lugo’s. One of them was sent to Madrid in 1789 by Mutis (cf. section 2.2) and was kept as manuscript no. 2922 in the Library of the Royal Palace in Madrid, together with a Spanish–Muisca vocabulary (cf. Ostler 1999). Most of the contents of the Royal Palace Library grammar were published by Lucena Salmoral (1967, 1970); the vocabulary by Quesada Pacheco (1991). A much earlier publication by Quijano Otero (1883) was apparently based on a copy of the same manuscript that remained in Colombia until it was lost. In 1970, after its partial publication by Lucena Salmoral, the manuscript of the Royal Palace Library grammar

21 The ending -quir´a,sofar unexplained, is highly frequent in Boyac´a and Cundinamarca (e.g. Chiquinquir´a, Moniquir´a, Raquir´a). As Constenla Uma˜na points out, it has often mistakenly been identified with the word quica (also recorded as quyca) ‘place’, ‘town’. 2.9 The Muisca language 83 became lost as well, while being transferred from Madrid to Salamanca (L´opez Garc´ıa 1995: 20).22 The other anonymous work is kept as manuscript no. 158 in the National Library of Colombia. Apart from a grammar, it contains an extensive vocabulary and religious texts. It is available in print in an edition of the Instituto Caro y Cuervo (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987) and certainly constitutes the most important extant source on Muisca. The authorship of the two anonymous grammars has been the object of much spec- ulation. A candidate for the authorship of either one of the manuscripts is the Italian Jesuit Joseph Dadey (1576–1660), known in his time as the foremost authority on the Muisca language. The history of the three Muisca grammars and their interrelations is discussed in Gonz´alez de P´erez (1980, 1987); see also Ostler (1994). Several works on Muisca date from the nineteenth century. Uricoechea’s Muisca grammar and vocabulary of 1871 is based on a compilation of elements from the two anonymous manuscripts. Adam (1878) presents an interesting study of Muisca word formation and syntax, based on Uricoechea, and Middendorf (1892) a grammatical overview of the language. Acosta Orteg´on (1938) is useful because it contains an exten- sive Muisca–Spanish vocabulary. It, however, must be used with utmost care due to the author’s highly personal and erratic interpretation of the symbols found in the original Muisca sources. For the following succinct discussion of the Muisca facts, we will refer to and draw from a substantial body of linguistic literature that appeared in the 1980s and 1990s. Constenla Uma˜na (1984) presents a modern interpretation of the Muisca sound system. Morphological and syntactic aspects of the Muisca language are treated in Ostler (1993, 1994) and, in a historical-comparative perspective, in Ostler (2000). Translated and annotated specimens of colonial texts written in the Muisca language are found in Ostler (1995, 1999). A further study dealing with Muisca is L´opez Garc´ıa (1995).

2.9.2 Phonology The orthography that was developed for Muisca during the colonial period diverged in several respects from general Spanish usage in accordance with the necessities of the language. For the recovery and interpretation of the sounds of Muisca, Lugo’swork is of particular importance. It contains three symbols not found in the anonymous grammars: , <h> and <>. Lugo’s symbol is represented as in the other sources.23 A passage in the National Library grammar (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 72) suggests that the sound it stood for was not a palatal affricate as in Spanish, but rather a

22 Thanks to Christiane D¨ummler, a photocopied version of the manuscript is in existence. 23 Except for the section on numerals in the National Library manuscript (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 161–3). This section seems to have been directly inspired by Lugo’s work. 84 2 The Chibcha Sphere palatalised stop [ty] (cf. Constenla Uma˜na 1984: 75–9).24 It should be noticed, however, that Lugo uses both the symbols and (cf. Ostler 1995: 134). In spite of some obvious misspellings and inconsistencies in the use of the two symbols at issue, Lugo shows a clear preference for the use of before (e.g. in chi- ‘our’, chiˆe ‘we’) and of before any other vowel (e.g. in c−huenha ‘bad’, c−hq ‘priest’). Ostler notes a number of exceptions in which precedes , such as c−hic−hua ‘to learn’ and c−hibc−ha ‘Chibcha’. Still, it may be argued that could have been a palatal affricate (as in Spanish), whereas represented some other sound, for instance, [ty]. Lugo’s symbol <h> is replaced by in the anonymous grammars (where Lugo’s c−huenha becomes chuenza). It probably represented an alveodental affricate [ts], as Constenla Uma˜na (1984: 79–85) argues.25 Lugo’ssymbol <> represented a vowel reportedly intermediate between [e] and [i]. On the basis of comparative considerations and the phonetic descriptions of the time, Constenla Uma˜na (1984: 93–7) assigns it the value of a high central vowel []. In the other sources <> has been replaced by ; thus, Lugo’s c−hq becomes chyquy.26 When </y> follows a in writing, a symbol is always inserted; e.g. in musca / muysca ‘human being’. It may have represented a non-syllabic labial element subsidiary to the realisation of the high central vowel (/mska/ [mwska]). The fact that Lugo chose to use a special symbol for the high central vowel turned out felicitous in that it avoids confusion with the high [i] and its non-syllabic correlate [y]. Both could be written as well as in colonial Spanish sources, as in fact they were in Lugo. Muisca had three simple stop consonants in the labial, alveolar and velar articulatory positions: [p], [t] and [k], respectively. For the [k] three different spellings were in use: , and . Lugo used before <> and before (e.g. c−hq‘priest’, qhic−ha ‘ten’), but, conforming to the Spanish orthography, he used before and , and elsewhere. Before other vowels represented a labialised velar sound [kw], as in hbqsquˆa ‘I do’. In the National Library grammar [k] also appears before (Lugo’s <>), and does not occur by itself; for its treatment of Lugo’s see below.

24 The passage (our translation) reads: ‘The pronunciation of the syllables cha, , chi, cho, chu should not be done with the tongue as a whole but just with the tip of it.’ 25 The awkwardness of Lugo’srepresentation of the complex obstruents [ty] and [ts]isreminiscent of the way in which la Carrera sought to describe comparable sounds in Mochica (by means of the symbols and , respectively; cf. section 3.4). 26 The word chyquy ‘priest’ originally denoted representatives of the native religion, but was subsequently also used for Roman Catholic clergymen. Its Spanish corruption jeque ‘sheikh’ presents an interesting case of linguistic interaction. In colonial New Granada native priests were usually referred to as moh´an. 2.9 The Muisca language 85

In addition to the three plain stops, Muisca had a complex obstruent, both in a plain and in a labialised version. It was usually written ,asinpqua [pkwa] ‘tongue’, pqueta [pketa] ‘silly’ and pquyquy [pkk] ‘understanding’. The plain version occurred before [e], [i] and [], the labialised version before [a] and [o]. This sound may have represented a coarticulated stop ([pk], [pkw]) and is mentioned in the National Library grammar as one of the special sounds (pronunciaciones particulares)ofthe language (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 72; cf. also Constenla Uma˜na 1984: 74). Notwithstanding the fact that many other exotic consonant clusters were found in Muisca, there are good reasons to assign a special status to this combination. At least in some lexical items the presumed coarticulated stop was a reflex of *ku-,asMuisca has pk(w)V where other Chibchan languages have kwV or kuwV (Constenla Uma˜na 1989: 43–4). Compare, for in- stance, Muisca pqua, Chimila kwa:´ ʔ, Cuna kwapinni [kwa:bin], Uw Cuwa (Tunebo) k`uwa ‘tongue’; Muisca pquaca,UwCuwa kw´ıka ‘arm’; Muisca pquyhyxio,UwCuwa kwas´aya ‘white’; Muisca pquyquy ‘understanding’, Cuna kwake [kwa:ge] ‘heart’; Muisca fapqua ‘’, Uw Cuwa b´akwa (Huber and Reed 1992). The presence of a coarticulated stop is limited to Muisca and Duit. It has not been found in other Chibchan languages. Six symbols that were used in the transcription of Muisca have been interpreted as rep- resenting fricatives: , , , , and . Constenla Uma˜na (1984: 74) observes that and were never used contrastively. These symbols may have referred to voiced [β] and voiceless [ϕ] bilabial fricatives, respectively, presumably al- lophones of a single phoneme. It should be observed that was only used before avowel symbol, whereas occurred in any position, before another consonant as well as word-finally. Lugo practically limited the use of (as an alternative for ) to the position before (e.g. fuc−ha ‘woman’, but cubun ‘language’), whereas the other sources extended the use of to other prevocalic positions as well (e.g. fac ‘outside’, fihista ‘breast’). As it seems, some orthographic normalisation occurred to the extent that became used mainly (but not exclusively) in root-initial position before avowel.27 The identification of and as identical elements is challenged by the existence of a word-initial cluster ,which is found in the word bfue ‘beam’. Possibly, this cluster may have to be reinterpreted to contain an internal vowel [βϕue]. The symbols and represented sibilants (presumably [s] and [ˇs], respec- tively). Constenla Uma˜na (1984: 86) considers them not to be contrastive. The symbol was used optionally before and (e.g. xie ‘who?’, bxy ‘I carry’), whereas could occur in all positions (e.g. saca ‘nose’, soco ‘bring!’, sisy ‘this’, muysca ‘human being’). Although in many lexical items (e.g. sie ∼ xie ‘river’, ‘water’; also ‘who’) the two symbols can be used interchangeably, in other cases there seems to be a preference for either one. Word pairs such as siu ‘rain’ versus xiun ‘sweat’, and sua

27 Today f is widely used in place names of Chibchan origin, such as Facatativ´a and Fusagasug´a. 86 2 The Chibcha Sphere

‘sun’ versus xua ‘dew’ do suggest an opposition, albeit of a limited functional load. In Lugo is mainly, and fairly consistently, found before . The symbol is interpreted by Constenla Uma˜na (1984: 88–90) as a [γ ], historically derived from a Chibchan voiced velar stop *g; e.g. gye [γ e] ‘excrement’ (cf. Chimila ga:, Kogui gai). The assumption that wasafricative is based on a probable symmetry with the labials () and on the pronunciation of the corresponding symbol in Spanish. As in Spanish, rather than ,was written before , and, in Lugo, also before <>; e.g. in gue ∼ gu ‘to be’, guity- ‘to whip’.28 Even though the regular realisation of was allegedly a fricative, a stop allophone may have occurred instead after a nasal, for instance, in the verbal future ending -nga. With the complex symbol we touch upon an insufficiency of the colonial Muisca orthography because an identical sequence was used to represent a bilabial glide [w] or a labialised voiced velar fricative [γ w], e.g. in gue [γ we ∼ we] ‘house’, gui ‘wife’ [γ wi ∼ wi]. In such cases the morphophonemic behaviour of the lexical item in question must be considered in order to recover the correct form. For instance, the first-person possessed form of ‘house’ is zue [tswe]‘my house’, not *zgue [tsγ e], as might be expected if the velar element were prominent. Lugo, who used , appears to have indicated the presence of a labial element by a circumflex accent on the following vowel (guˆe, guˆı), although not consistently. The question whether the velar element was pronounced at all in such cases remains open for discussion. Lugo occasionally used the spelling -guˆa for the interrogative suffix [wa]. Some Chibchan cognate relations, such as Muisca gua ‘fish’ (Cuna ua, Chimila wa:ŋgra:, Kogui uaka), suggest that a velar fricative was not necessarily always represented in .29 All colonial sources agree that the symbol represented an aspiration. In con- tradistinction to , the combination was not normally used to denote a labial approximant [w], as in the orthography of so many other Amerindian languages during the colonial period, e.g. hui ‘inside’ was pronounced [huy ∼ huwi], not *[wi]. The Muisca aspiration occurred prevocalically, but characteristically also between two like vowels. Sequences of identical high vowels separated by may have counted as single vowels. This can be deduced from the fact that the tense–aspect suffix -squa,

28 The vocabulary of the National Library grammar mentions a related verb root uity- [wit], which has the meaning ‘to whip/chastise oneself.’ This unique correlation does not prevent us from following the general opinion that guity-was pronounced [γ it], not [γ wit] nor [wit]. The shape of the prefixes that accompany guity- supports this view. 29 Constenla Uma˜na (1984: 98) mentions the example of the root gua- ‘to kill’ as a case where a velar fricative could have been retained (by comparison with Guatuso kua:, also Kogui gwaˇ´si). However, the root for ‘to kill’ in Muisca is gu-, rather than gua-. The confusion is probably due to Lugo (1619: 77–8), who translates the verb for ‘to feed’ gua-squˆa as ‘to kill’, ‘to say’, glosses which correspond to gu-squˆa;but see p. 70, where he translates it correctly. In the Muisca stem (b)gu- ‘to kill’ a velar fricative was indeed present. 2.9 The Muisca language 87 otherwise only occurring after monosyllabic roots ending in a vowel, was also regularly found after roots that ended in such a sequence, e.g. b-chuhu-squa ‘to wash’, b-chihi- squa ‘to write’, ‘to paint’, tyhy-squa ‘to sit down’.30 This situation suggests a special class of aspirated vowels. In Lugo’s grammar the sequence is relatively in- frequent, omission of its first vowel being the rule, as, for instance, in shˆuhˆa ‘eight’, qhˆuma ‘big’, thpqua- ‘to wound’ (in the vocabulary of the National Library grammar: suhuza, cuhuma, b-tyhypqua-, respectively) and bhacˆuca ‘needlessly’ ( fahacuca in the vocabulary published by Quesada Pacheco 1991). In some items Lugo hesitates between notations of the types and ,asinthe postposition bhˆohˆohˆa ∼ bhˆohˆa ‘with’ (bohoza), or inserts an where others do not have it, as, for instance, in thh- ‘to love’ (b-tyzy-). The nasals and were both very frequent. The symbol ,which presum- ably represented a vibrant, is occasionally found in Lugo, but it is nearly absent in the other sources, who replace it with ; e.g. (Lugo) erq [erk], (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 286) yechyc [etyk] ‘other’.31 At least in borrowings from Spanish it survived, as can be deduced from a case like raga ‘dagger’ (Spanish daga). There were no laterals in Muisca. In addition to the vowel </y> (see above), the sources of the Muisca language record five vowels that were similar to their Spanish counterparts: a, e, i, o, u. The vowel symbols and can refer both to syllabic [i], [u], and to non-syllabic [y], [w].32 An analysis of the lexical and grammatical data brings to light the necessity to distinguish between the two possibilities in writing, as their realisation is not entirely predictable. For instance, the spelling ja of the word for ‘firewood’ (also found as ia, cf. Uw Cuwa r´eya)inthe vocabulary accompanying the National Library grammar (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 273) strongly suggests the presence of a non-syllabic approximant [ya]. By contrast, the word for ‘illness’ iu must be interpreted as polysyllabic [iyu] on the basis of its morphophonemic behaviour.33 This option appears to be confirmed by the 1612 Vocabulary, in which the form at issue is transcribed as i¨u, suggesting that the two vowels were pronounced separately (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 62). In the Royal Palace Library grammar published by Lucena Salmoral (1967: 67) the past participle of the verb m-u- ‘to spin’ is explicitly written as uisca¨ ,again suggesting that the vowel sequence

30 The ending -squa is also found after the verbaliser -go-, e.g. in muysy-go-squa ‘to dream’ (cf. Adelaar 1995a). In the Muisca vocabularies all non-stative verbs are presented with either the ending -squa or -suca. 31 The word erq is found in one of the sonnets that accompany Lugo’s grammar (Ostler 1995: 136). 32 In word-initial position, is often replaced with its orthographic variant , especially when a full vowel [u] is represented. 33 The verb iu- ‘to be ill’ takes the imperfective suffix -suca, not its alternative form -squa. Since the latter is preferred after monosyllabic roots ending in a vowel, the use of -suca suggests a polysyllabic structure for the root iu (cf. Adelaar 1995a). 88 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.6 Inventory of Muisca consonant phonemes

Bilabial Alveolar Palatal Velar Coarticulated labiovelar Glottal

Stops p t k pkw /pk Affricates c ty /ˇc Fricatives β / ϕ s(ˇs) γ h Nasals m n Vibrant r Glides w y

Table 2.7 Inventory of Muisca vowel phonemes

Front Central Back

High i u Mid e o Low a Aspirated versus plain

may have been polysyllabic [uwi]. Finally, it is likely that gui [γ wi ∼ wi] ‘wife’ and ui [uy ∼ uwi] ‘left side’ were distinct not only in writing, but also in pronunciation. A putative inventory of the Muisca consonant phonemes is shown in table 2.6. It con- tains the phonemes proposed in Constenla Uma˜na (1984) expanded with our additions. The vowels of Muisca are shown in table 2.7. Consonant clusters frequently occur both in word-initial and -final position (cf. Constenla Uma˜na 1984: 100–1). Most (but not all) of the initial clusters owe their existence to the presence of a prefix, in particular the verbal prefix b-/m-,which can indicate , and the personal reference markers z- ‘first person singular’ and m- ‘second person singular’, which indicate both possessor and subject. These personal reference markers are also found as ze-/zy- and um-, respectively, making it clear that if an additional vowel was not always present, it was at least recoverable.34 In (59) the prefix ze-isgiven in its full form, whereas m- is short.

(59) m-hu-za-c ze-guque 2S.SG-come-NE-AL 1S.SG-say.PA ‘I thought that you had not come.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 257)

34 Lugo writes h- for the first-person prefix. Remember also that um- is frequently represented as vm-;inour discussion of Muisca grammar, we shall write um- throughout. 2.9 The Muisca language 89

The prefix b-/m- is frequently found before other consonants. Although there seems to be no vowel that can be recovered, certain combinations with b-,inparticular, are awkward to pronounce if no vowel is inserted (see also above for the unusual case of bfue).35 Some examples of clusters involving b-/m- are given in (60). The function of the prefix will be treated later.

(60) b-so- ‘to eat (herbs, leaves)’ b-ca- ‘to eat (maize, meat, fruit, etc.)’ b-chichua- ‘to learn’ b-hu- ‘to carry’ m-nypqua- ‘to hear’, ‘to understand’

Word-final consonant clusters are frequently found in genitives which precede their heads. When the genitive consists of a noun with a final vowel a, that vowel may be suppressed. As a result, a consonant cluster can end up in word-final position, e.g. in (61).

(61) muysc chimy [muysca ‘human being’] human.being.G flesh ‘human flesh’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 210)

2.9.3 Grammar In a review of previous syntactical claims concerning the Muisca language Ostler (1994) concludes that Muisca is a strict SOV language. The auxiliary verb gue/gu follows the main verb. Both adjectives and numerals follow the noun they modify, while demon- stratives and genitives precede the noun they modify. Muisca has postpositions and case suffixes. All these features are characteristic for most of the Chibchan languages that we have discussed until now. From a morphological point of view Muisca is a complex language that uses both prefixes and suffixes. The prefixes are mainly related to personal reference and valency (passive, transitive–intransitive). Nominalisation, verbalisation, negation, interrogation, topicalisation, mood, tense, aspect, case and degree (of adjectives) are indicated by means of suffixes. Other morphological processes found in Muisca are root suppletion, internal vowel change and the suppression of final vowels, as in (61). Some parts of the verbal conjugation, in particular the present and past participles, the so-called second supine, and the imperative can be highly irregular.

35 Spanish colonial grammarians often tolerated consonant sequences which their modern suc- cessors prefer to split by inserting shwa-type vowels; for a similar example in Araucanian see chapter 5. 90 2 The Chibcha Sphere

The Muisca verbal lexicon comprises a formal division between transitive and in- transitive verbs. This division is made visible by the conjugational behaviour of the verbs, and in most cases also by the shape of the verb stem itself. Many transitive verb stems in Muisca contain the prefix b-/m-; see also (60). If the transitive verb stem is part of a transitive/intransitive verb pair, its intransitive counterpart does not have the b-/m- prefix. Speaking generally, the m- allomorph is found before vowels and nasals, whereas b- occurs in clusters with non-nasal consonants. It has been argued that, since m- is the prevocalic allomorph (where no influence from the phonological environment is expected), it also constitutes the more basic form of the prefix (Ostler 2000: 288). Transitive–intransitive verb pairs differentiated by b-/m- are exemplified in (62) and (63). The latter also exhibits a root vowel change.

(62) to- ‘to split’ [intransitive] b-to- ‘to split’ [transitive] (63) na- ‘to go’ [intransitive] m-ny- ‘to take along’ [transitive]

Transitive verb stems that are not paired with intransitives may contain the b-/m- prefix, although many of them do not. All transitive verbs lose their b-/m- prefix in the imperative, and in several participial and gerund forms (64). Some intransitive verbs also have an initial b-/m- element, which behaves as if it were part of the root and is never lost. Intransitive verbs of any type take an additional prefix a- in the imperative form (65) and occasionally also in one of the participles.

(64) b-quy- ‘to do’ [transitive] quy-u ‘do!’ [transitive imperative] quy-ia ‘having done’ [transitive past participle] (65) bgy- ‘to die’ [intransitive] a-bgy-u ‘die!’ [intransitive imperative]

Examples (66) and (67) illustrate the case of a transitive–intransitive pair with an ir- regular imperative form, where it can be seen that the prefix a- serves to avoid homonymy between a transitive and an intransitive form. The most common imperative ending is -u (plural -u-ua). For negative commands the negative future is used.

(66) b-ga- ‘to make’, ‘to cause to become’ [transitive] so ‘make!’, ‘cause to become!’ [transitive imperative] (67) ga- ‘to become’ [intransitive] a-so ‘become!’ [intransitive imperative] 2.9 The Muisca language 91

There are other formal strategies to distinguish transitive from intransitive verbs. The latter may take a suffix -n-, not found in the former, e.g. miu- ‘to crumble (transitive)’ versus miu-n- ‘to crumble (intransitive)’. A number of Muisca verbs are stative. They refer to existence or position and may encode number or shape of the theme. Most of these verbs end in -ne, e.g. zo-ne ‘to be lo- cated (singular)’, puy-ne ‘to be located (of liquids)’ (Ostler and Gonz´alez forthcoming). The majority of Muisca verbs, however, are active. Active verbs are conjugated for tense. They can take either one of the characteristic endings -squa and -suca,which is the form by which they are normally found in the colonial dictionaries. The endings -squa and -suca indicate imperfective aspect in finite verbs, which can then be interpreted as present or (ongoing) past-tense forms.

(68) ze-bquy-squa 1S.SG-do-IA ‘I do’, ‘I was doing.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 81) (69) ze-guity-suca 1S.SG-whip-IA ‘I whip’, ‘I was whipping.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 84)

As we have noted before, the choice of -squa is phonologically determined (see also Adam 1878). For -suca there is no such restriction. Since it is added to all active verb roots that cannot take -squa,itappears to have a default distribution. In a few cases -suca has been found with a root that normally takes -squa, allegedly with a frequentative meaning (70), (71).

(70) ze-hu-squa36 1S.SG-come-IA ‘I come.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 332) (71) ze-hu-suca 1S.SG-come-IA ‘I come often.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 332)

It may be observed that examples (70) and (71), originally from the National Library grammar, seem to be incompatible with a statement made in the same source, namely,

36 (70) and (71) are entries in Gonz´alez de P´erez’sedition of the vocabulary of the National Library grammar, where they appear as zchusqua and zchusuca, respectively. Elsewhere in the same work (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 98, 121) we find zehusqua with the meaning ‘to come’. We assume that zchusqua and zchusuca, not attested in any other source as far as we know, are miswritings for zehusqua and zehusuca, respectively. Uricoechea (1871: 204), who must have used the same source, writes zuhusqua/zuhusuca in accordance with a pronunciation rule formulated in the National Library grammar (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 140). 92 2 The Chibcha Sphere that ze-hu-squa serves as the frequentative counterpart of the i-xyquy ‘I come’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 121). A frequentative meaning also obtains when -suca is added to a stative stem (72), (73).

(72) i-sucu-n37 1S.SG-be.there-ST ‘I am there.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 261) (73) i-sucu-n-suca 1S.SG-be.there-ST-IA ‘I am there frequently.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 261)

Some verbs, such as -na ‘to go’, can have a present-tense interpretation, even when the imperfective suffix is lacking. If there is an imperfective suffix, it has a frequentative meaning, even though it is -squa.

(74) i-na 1S.SG-go ‘I go’, ‘I went.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 123) (75) i-na-squa 1S.SG-go-IA ‘I go often.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 123)

The indicative future tense of verbs is formed by adding -nga to those verbs that can take -squa in the present tense, and -nynga to those that can only take -suca; for a historical phonological explanation of this phenomenon see Ostler and Gonz´alez (forthcoming). Stative verbs change -ne to -ne-nga (76). The future form of the verb ‘to be’ is nga.

(76) muysca-c ze-gue-ne-nga man-AL 1S.SG-be-ST-F ‘I will be a man (person).’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 127)

The past tense has no specific ending. Verb roots which end in -a- normally take an (optional) suffix -o [w] (77); some roots (including a few in -a-) take -quy (∼-que) (78); the others remain unaltered.38 Before the negative suffix -za most roots remain unaltered (79).

37 There was probably no difference in use between the endings -n and -ne (∼-ny) (Ostler and Gonz´alez forthcoming). 38 The velar stop in -quy (∼-que)may also appear in other forms of the paradigm, namely in the imperative and past participle. From a historical point of view, it can be considered as a part of the root (Ostler and Gonz´alez, forthcoming). 2.9 The Muisca language 93

(77) ze-mnypqua(-o) 1S.SG-hear/understand-PA ‘I have heard/understood.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 98) (78) um-gui boza um-caquy-oa 2P.SG-wife with 2S.SG-fight.PA-IR ‘Did you fight with your wife?’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 356) (79) ze-gu-za [ze-guquy ‘I said’] 1S.SG-say.PA-NE ‘I did not say.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 115)

Interrogation and negation are indicated by adding the suffixes -ua [wa]/-o39 and -za, respectively, to a verb form. The future tense has a special negative ending -zi-nga (not *-nga-za). The auxiliary verb gue/gu has as its interrogative and negative counterparts ua/o and nza, respectively; the corresponding future forms are nnua and nzinga.Alonger and more explicit negation of the verb ‘to be’ is ma-gue-za.Itincludes a negative prefix ma-oflimited productivity.

(80) hycha-n i-na-zi-nga I-TO 1S.SG-go-NE-F ‘I will not go.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 335) (81) chie nnua we be.F.IR ‘Shall we be?’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 78) (82) chie nzinga we be.NE.F ‘We shall not be.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 79)

Muisca has three nominalisations or relative verbs which have been interpreted tradi- tionally as participles (agentives) of the present, future and past. With all three, the b-/m- prefix is lost. The present participle can be formed by adding a suffix -sca,very often accompanied by a vowel change in the root (83). This suffix -sca can only be added to roots that have the phonological characteristics allowing the presence of the imperfec- tive marker -squa (see above). The other roots, namely, those that take the imperfective marker -suca, are treated differently. They receive either a suffix -suca (transitives) (84), or -uca (intransitives) (85).

39 The distribution of -ua in relation to -o is not entirely clear; it may have been a case of free variation (Ostler and Gonz´alez forthcoming). The marker -o is reminiscent of the interrogative marker -o in Ika. 94 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(83) b-quy ‘to do’ qui-sca ‘(he) who does’ m-o- ‘to bathe [transitive]’ o-esca ‘(he) who bathes (someone)’ o- ‘to bathe [intransitive]’ o-esca ‘(he) who bathes (himself)’ b-ca- ‘to eat’ qui-esca ‘(he) who eats’ (84) b-xin- ‘to sew’ xin-suca ‘(he) who sews’ (85) cubun- ‘to speak’ cubun-uca ‘(he) who speaks’

Some present participles are quite irregular in their formation, allowing, in a few cases, an additional distinction between a frequentative and a non-frequentative meaning. Some irregular forms coincide either with the future, or with the past participle (86), (87). In (86) the regular formal opposition is taken over by a frequentative contrast. A future form (sienga)isused both for present and future, whereas the expected present form (siesca)isinterpreted as a present frequentative.

(86) na- ‘to go’ sie-nga ‘(he) who goes’, ‘(he) who will go’ sie-sca ‘(he) who goes often’ (87) sucun- ‘to be’ suz-a ‘(he) who is’, ‘(he) who has been’

The future participle, with a few exceptions, takes the same endings as the future indicative (-nga,-nynga). The past participle generally ends in -a or -ia. There are many irregular formations, and the final consonant of a stem preceding -a is often not predictable.40 The past participle has an additional function. It can be used as a hortative (a so-called ‘second imperative’) with the possibility of marking the subject for all persons and number (88). A third-person subject remains unmarked, but it is possible to distinguish between transitive and intransitive forms by adding the prefix a-tothe latter (89). Present participles can also be used as hortatives; they convey progressive rather than punctual aspect meaning.

(88) chi-quy-ia 1S.PL-do-PA.AG ‘(we) who did’, ‘(we) having done’, ‘Let us do!’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 82) (89) za-ia [b-za-‘to place’] place-PA.AG ‘(he) who placed it’, ‘Let him place it!’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 104)

40 Considering the fact that the consonants preserved in past-participle endings are also found in so-called irregular past-tense forms and imperatives, one may conclude that they are part of original stems, which appear in a truncated form in the present tense; cf. Ostler and Gonz´alez (forthcoming). 2.9 The Muisca language 95

(90) a-za-ia [za- ‘to take a place’] NT-place-PA.AG ‘(he) who took a place’, ‘Let him take a place!’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 104)

When a sentence is introduced by an interrogative pronoun, its main verb must be a participle, rather than a finite verb (91). (Note that baz-a is a past participle of the verb m-a- ‘to bring’.) This does not hold when the interrogative pronoun is in an oblique case or is followed by a postposition (92); cf. Ostler (1994: 221–2).

(91) ipqua fuyz-o ma-baz-a [fuyze ‘all’] what all-IR 2S.SG-bring-PA.AG ‘What things did you bring?’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 132) (92) sie-c-o m-∅-cuquy [b-cu- ‘to buy’] who-AL-IR 2S.SG-T-buy.PA ‘From whom did you buy it?’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 193)

Passive resultative participles can be formed from at least part of the transitive verbs. The shape of these participles resembles that of stative verbs, and is characterised by a prefix a- and a suffix -ne, attached to the past-tense stem (93); cf. Ostler and Gonz´alez (forthcoming).

(93) ia a-chihiquy-ne already 3S-write-SN ‘It is already written.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 126)

The grammars of the Muisca language mention the existence of two so-called ‘supines’. Examples of use are rare. The first supine has subject marking (personal reference) and a b-/m- prefix if applicable. It is derived from the root by adding a suffix -ioa [yowa ∼ yuwa];41 e.g. ze-b-quy-ioa ‘in order for me to do’. The second supine is formally related to the present participle, with which it shares most of the irregularities. It can be obtained by substituting -ca for -suca or -sca, e.g. guity-ca ‘(in order) to beat’, cf. guity-suca ‘(he) who beats’; qui-ca ‘(in order) to do’, cf. qui-sca ‘(he) who does’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 110). The passive in Muisca is formed by means of a prefix n-, added to a transitive root deprived of its (possible) b-/m- prefix. All indicative tense forms, all originally active participles, as well as the first supine can be passivised. The subject (patient) of a passive form is identified by means of a personal reference prefix which precedes n-; the agent

41 The pronunciation [yuwa] is suggested by the fact that Lugo writes a on the u,asin a-guit-yˆua ‘for him/them to beat’ (Lugo 1619: 48–9). The National Library grammar has -ioa. 96 2 The Chibcha Sphere cannot be expressed. A special prefix a-, identical in form to a third-person subject marker, accompanies the passive marker, except when the preceding subject marker already ends in a. This a- prefix of the passive construction is absent before participles whose subject–patient is third person (also in their hortative function). If we assume that a- is part of the passive formation, the third-person subject marker of the passives may be interpreted as a zero marker throughout.42

(94) chi-a-n-quy-squa 1S.PL-PS-PS-do-IA ‘We are being done’. ‘It is being done to us.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 111) (95) m-a-n-quy-ioa 2S.SG-PS-PS-do-SP ‘for you to be suffered’, ‘so that it may be done to you’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 112) (96) ∅-a-n-quy-nga 3S-PS-PS-do-F ‘He/it will be done.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 112) (97) ∅-n-quy-ia 3S-PS-do-PA.AG ‘(he) who was done’. ‘Let him/it be done!’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 113)

Some passive formations are irregular, as is the case of ucan- ‘to know’, where n- is infixed, rather than prefixed, e.g. chi-a-u-n-cane ‘we were known’. Compare also cha-nn-isty ‘I was seen’ from m-isty- ‘to see’ (cf. Ostler 2000: 284), where a vocalic onset of the root is compensated by doubling of the passive prefix. Personal reference marking in Muisca is morphological and consists of prefixation. Two sets of personal prefixes have to be distinguished minimally. They are summarised in table 2.8 together with the syntactically free personal pronouns. The roots contained in the case for third-person personal pronouns are , rather than personal pronouns. They represent the three usual degrees of distance (near speaker / near addressee / remote). The form of the first-person-singular prefix exhibits an interesting variation. It appears as i- before alveolar and palatal consonants (e.g. i-chuta ‘my son’, i-nyquy ‘my brother’)

42 Historically, the a- prefix is probably identical to the homophonous third-person prefix. Ostler (2000: 285) shows that a wasathird-person singular pronoun in Proto-Colombian Chibchan. If we analyse a- synchronically as part of the passive formation, no more than two sets of personal reference markers have to be distinguished. 2.9 The Muisca language 97

Table 2.8 Personal reference in Muisca

Set 1 Set 2 Personal pronouns

1 pers. sing. z-/i-/Ø- cha- hycha 1 pers. plur. chi- chi- chie 2 pers. sing. m- ma- mue ∼ muy* 2 pers. plur. mi- mi- mie 3 pers. a- Ø- sis(y) / ys(y) / as(y)

*Word-final high vowels in monosyllabic words are normally followed by -e; the form muy [mw ]isfound before words with an initial vowel, as in muy um-boi ‘your cloak’. and as z(e∼y)- elsewhere (cf. Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 75).43 The latter is found as z- before vowels (e.g. z-ue ‘my house’) and as ze- (Lugo: h-) before consonants (e.g. ze-boi ‘my cloak’), although z- is often written instead of ze-. The National Library grammar indicates that the prefix ze-was usually left out before a b-/m- prefix, e.g. b-quy-squa ‘I do’ instead of ze-b-quy-squa (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 87). However, this last practice is rarely reflected in the examples. When the prefix z- precedes ia [ya] or io, the semi-vowel i is lost, e.g. in z-an-suca ‘I flee’, from ian- ‘to flee’. The presence of the second-person-singular prefix m- eliminates a following b-/m- prefix, as in m-iohoty-suca ‘you drink’, from b-iohoty- ‘to drink’; this prefix can be preceded by u in order to facilitate its pronunciation in clusters. The third-person prefix a- is merged with a following high vowel, following the rules a + i > e, a + y > a; a + u > o, e.g. epqua (< a + ipqua) ‘his belongings’; ata (< a + yta ‘his hand’); oba (< a + uba) ‘his face’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 140). The division of labour that obtains between Set 1 and Set 2 prefixes is of particular interest. The indicative tenses and first supine (in -ioa)ofthe active verbs select Set 1 prefixes to indicate a subject, and Set 2 prefixes to indicate a first- or second-person object (98). The simultaneous indication of subject and object is limited to the combina- tions chi-a- (third-person subject and first-person-plural object) and mi-a- (third-person subject and second-person plural object) (99).44 If any other combination of participants involving a first- or second-person object is to be expressed, the object is indicated mor- phologically by means of a prefix, whereas the subject can be expressed by a noun or a full pronoun. A third-person object is morphologically zero.

43 There is a striking parallel with the Chol´on language (see section 4.11), where the same alter- nation is found in the third-person-plural prefix i-/ˇci-. 44 It may be possible to analyse these combinations as contractions of chi(e) a- and mi(e) a-, respectively. One would expect a final -e to be omitted before a vowel. 98 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(98) Pedro cha-guity Pedro 1O.SG-beat.PA ‘Pedro beat me.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 143) (99) Pedro-z mi-a-guit-ua [guity- ‘to beat’] Pedro-EU45 2O.PL-3S-beat.PA-IR ‘Did Pedro beat you (plural)?’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 143)

Stative verbs in -ne behave like the active verbs in that their subject is expressed by means of Set 1 prefixes. By contrast, the irregular verb ha- ‘to say’ (as in cha-ha-sugue ‘I say’, ma-ha-sugue ‘you say’, etc.) takes Set 2 prefixes for subject reference. The participles or relative verbs (including when used as ‘second imperatives’) also take Set 2 prefixes that refer to a subject; see (88) and (91). Objects can only be indicated by means of a free pronoun or noun (100).

(100) Dios gue chie ma-quy-ia46 God be we LP-make-PA.AG ‘God is the One who made us.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 143)

Passive verbs take Set 2 prefixes for the specification of their subject–patient; see (94)–(96). True imperatives do not take prefixes; an object can only be indicated by means of a free pronoun (101).

(101) hycha gu [b-gu- ‘to kill’] I kill.IM ‘Kill me!’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 143)

Nouns can take both sets of prefixes. As we have seen in some of the cases mentioned previously (a-uba, i-chuta), Set 1 prefixes are used to indicate a possessor. By contrast, Set 2 prefixes refer to the subject of a predicative construction. They are attached to the noun or adjective which is used predicatively.47

(102) cha-muysca cho gue 1S.SG-man good be ‘I am a good man.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 142)

45 The element -z (Lugo -h)isdescribed as an ‘adornment’ in the Royal Palace Library grammar (Lucena Salmoral 1967: 56). It is, in fact, unexplained (cf. Ostler 1994: 213). In some contexts it appears to express the meaning of ‘also’, ‘too’, e.g. fa-z a-hu-za ‘he has not come today (fa) either’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 322). 46 A prefix ma- (homophonous with second-person-singular ma-) can be added to participles of the verb ‘to do’ with no other semantic effect than ‘elegance’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 144). 47 In the original the prefix cha-iswritten separately. 2.9 The Muisca language 99

The case-marking strategies of Muisca are extensively treated in Ostler (1993). When expressed by free lexical items, the subject and the object of a verb are not marked for their respective roles. These are made explicit by word order. Ostler (1993: 8) illustrates this with the following example.

(103) Pedro Juan a-b-gˆu Pedro Juan 3S-T-kill.PA ‘Pedro killed Juan.’ (Lugo 1619: 94–5)

Oblique case is marked by suffixes or postpositions. Three case suffixes -c(a), -n(a), and -s(a) are of central importance. Ostler (1993: 9) characterises their basic local meanings as Goal, Location and Path, respectively.With the case suffix -c(a) the emphasis is on movement. With -n(a) rest in location is meant, but it can also refer to a source, in particular when the name of a place is mentioned (106).

(104) gua-c a-sy-ne [sy-ne ‘to roam’] mountain-AL 3S-roam-ST ‘He is out roaming through the mountains.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 301) (105) ta-s ze-mi-squa [mi- ‘to pass’] field-PT 1S.SG-pass-IA ‘I walk through the field.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 290) (106) chunsa-n fac48 a-iane [ian- ‘to flee’] Tunja-L outward 3S-leave.PA ‘He left Tunja.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 227)

Characteristic of the Muisca language is the existence of fused forms of personal pronouns and case markers. The personal reference markers in these combinations co- incide with the Set 2 prefixes; they are followed by an element -ha- and a case marker. The third-person forms do not contain -ha- and are based on the deictic element y-.A further set of fused forms is based on Set 1 prefixes followed by an element -hu- and a case marker. Ostler (1993: 11) identifies this -hu- element with the adverb hui ‘inside’. Again the third-person forms are special.49 An overview of the fused forms is given in table 2.9. The forms in the three upper rows represent straightforward combinations of person and case, the forms in the three lower rows indicate physical nearness (‘with’, ‘at’, ‘among’). The following examples are discussed in Ostler (1993: 10). In (109) hui-na has no prefix, because it is preceded by a full noun as a possessor (suetiba).

48 In the original text: uac. 49 The existence of these fused combinations of person markers and case markers is reminiscent of a similar phenomenon in the Tupi–Guaran´ı languages. Like Muisca, these languages have a fair amount of idiosyncratic case marking governed by verbs. 100 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.9 Inventory of Muisca pronoun and case combinations (based on Ostler 1993)

1 pers. sing. 1 pers. plur. 2 pers. sing. 2 pers. plur. 3 pers.

Goal chahac chihac mahac mihac yc Location chahan chihan mahan mihan yn Path chahas chihas mahas mihas ys Goal zuhuc chihuc muhuc mihuc hoc Location zuhuin(a) chihuin(a) muhuin(a) mihuin(a) ahuin(a), bon Path zuhus – muhus – hos

(107) bo-n i-zo-ne 3P.presence-L 1S.SG-be.there-ST ‘I am at his disposal.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 50) (108) zu-hui-n a-na 1P-presence-L 3S-go.PA ‘He went away from me.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 80) (109) suetiba hui-na fac chi-a-b-ta devil presence-L outside 1O.PL-3S-T-take.PA ‘He took us out of the power of the devil.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 350)

Ostler (1993: 9) notes that the third-person allative pronoun y-c can be used as a sort of proclitic complement of the verb, even when it is preceded by the real complement noun phrase.

(110) gata y-c cu [b-cu-‘to blow’] fire that-AL blow.IM ‘Blow on the fire!’ (lit. ‘The fire, blow on it!’) (Uricoechea 1871: 70)

The grammars and vocabularies of the Muisca language contain a wealth of infor- mation concerning the derived uses of the three basic case markers, which are highly varied and idiosyncratic. Ostler (1993: 13–15) analyses their behaviour in connection with seventeen representative verbs. Some of the examples he mentions are:

(111) pquapqua i-zy-s ∅-b-za-squa [zye ‘hair’] hat 1P.SG-hair-PT 1S.SG-T-locate-IA ‘I put a hat on my head.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 85) (112) muysca cho-c ze-ga-squa man good-AL 1S.SG-become-IA ‘I become a good man.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 269) 2.9 The Muisca language 101

Uricoechea (1871: 68–73) offers an extensive list of Muisca verbs and the case com- plements they govern. The choice of complements and verbs can be highly idiomatic, as is illustrated in (113)–(115).

(113) cha-ha.c a-quib-go [y-c quib-go- ‘to take leave of’] 1P-AL 3S-leave-FA.PA ‘He took leave of me.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 58) (114) cha-ha.s a-fihiza-n-suca [y-s fihiza-n- ‘to be heavy’] 1P-PT 3S-heavy-NT-IA ‘(The load) is heavy on me.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 295) (115) Dios yˆe h-u-c a-b-gˆa [ho-c b-ga- ‘to teach’; ie ‘road’] God way 1P-presence-AL 3S-T-cause.to.be.PA ‘She taught me the way of God.’ (Lugo 1619: 116)

Muisca has a rich array of postpositions, mostly derived from body-part terms. These postpositions can be combined with the case markers in order to further specify the relation they convey. They can also take possessive personal prefixes. Examples of such postpositions are fihista ‘chest’ (‘on’), uba ‘face’ (‘before’, ‘in front of’) and inta ‘substitute’ (‘in place of’). The comitative–instrumental postposition bohoza and those postpositions referring to a beneficiary (-san, uaca) are not normally combined with other case markers. The genitive relationship is expressed in different ways with the sole common charac- teristic that a possessor must precede the head. If the possessor is a full personal pronoun referring to one of the participants in the speech act, the corresponding possessive prefix is added to the head noun, e.g. muy um-boi [you 2P.SG-cloak] ‘your cloak’. When the possessor is not a participant in the speech act (that is, when it is neither first, nor second person), no possessive prefix intervenes, but the noun referring to the possessor may undergo formal changes. One of these changes is the elimination of a final vowel a,as we have seen in muysc chimy ‘human flesh’ and in muysc cubun ‘language of man’. Alternatively, it is possible to replace the suppressed a byahigh vowel u or y.

(116) ze-pab-u chuta [paba ‘father’] 1P-father-G son ‘my father’s son’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 73) (117) i-chut-y gui [chuta ‘son’] 1P-son-G wife ‘my son’s wife’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 73)

The loss of final e following a high vowel has also been recorded. It may have to do with the fact that the e itself was originally added by phonological rule, rather than 102 2 The Chibcha Sphere being part of the inherited form. Example (120) illustrates the use of a postposition in a genitive construction.

(118) su cubun [sue ‘Spaniard’, ‘bird’] Spaniard.G language ‘Spanish’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 73, 138) (119) iie [ie ‘smoke’] smoke.G road ‘chimney’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 137) (120) xi uaca-ua [xie ‘who’] who.G for-IR ‘for whom?’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 288)

Finally, a suffix -s can be added as a genitive marker. This option has been attested with the words cha ‘man’, ‘male’ and guecha [wetya] ‘uncle on mother’s side’.

(121) cha-s gue man-G house ‘the man’s house’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 73, 137)

Relative clauses in Muisca are mainly constructed by means of participles. Ostler (1993: 24–5) observes that Muisca occasionally encodes oblique case relations in a relative clause. The pronoun–case combination y-n ‘in it’ was used to mark a relativised element as locative (122), whereas a rarely attested verbal prefix u- ‘with it’ could do the same for an instrumental relativised element. As far as the latter is concerned, Ostler draws attention to a formally and semantically similar construction in the of (Craig 1991).

(122) guˆe -n c−ha-suh-a h-ˆıpqua gu house it-L 1S.SG-be-PA.AG 1P-belonging be ‘The house in which I live is mine.’ (Lugo 1619: 106–7)

The possibilities of verbal complementation in Muisca are numerous. They consist in the addition of suffixes or postpositions, some of them similar to the ones operating in the case system, to specific forms of the verbal paradigm. The element -xin,exemplified in (123), is added to a participle in order to express a simultaneous event which is real; the element -san is used in the same way to express a hypothetical event (124); -nan, affixed to a finite verb, denotes a condition (125). For a full inventory of the possibilities see Ostler (1993: 27–8). 2.9 The Muisca language 103

(123) cha-qui-sca-xin 1S.SG-do-PR.AG-SM ‘when I am doing...’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 91) (124) cha-quy-nga-san 1S.SG-do-F.AG-HY ‘if I would have to do...’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 91) (125) ze-b-quy-nga-nan 1S.SG-T-do-F-CD ‘ifIhavetodo...’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 90)

A complement of the verb gu- ‘to say’, ‘to think’, ‘to believe’ is formed by adding the allative case marker -c(a) to a finite verb, if it is negative, and to a participle, if it is positive. The former possibility was illustrated in (59) (m-hu-za-c ze-guque ‘I thought you had not come’); an example of the latter is (126).

(126) Pedro huca-c ze-guque Pedro come.PA.AG-AL 1S.SG-say.PA ‘I thought Pedro had come.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 257)

2.9.4 Lexicon An interesting feature of the more basic verbs of the Muisca lexicon is the fact that some of them appear to be semantically underspecified. Uricoechea (1871: 73) observes that the transitive verb zebtascua (b-ta-) ‘does not mean anything by itself’. Only in combination with a locative adverb or complement does it acquire a meaning, e.g. hui b-ta- translated as Spanish meter ‘to put inside’ or encarcelar ‘to lock up in gaol’. Uricoechea gives many examples of such combinations, which suggest that the verb means something like ‘to act upon an object with force so as to affect its location in space’ (‘to throw’). However, it is certainly difficult to fit in all the idiomatic uses Uricoechea mentions, such as Doctrina y-s b-ta ‘I failed to attend religious training’. Clearly, some sort of force or violence is implied, because ‘to place’, ‘to put’ is preferably translated by b-za-, a verb with an equally wide spectrum of idiomatic possibilities. The verb b-ga-, another case of low semantic specification, can best be translated as ‘to provide someone or something with a state or characteristic’ (compare French rendre). But again, it is not easy to relate this broad interpretation to the meaning of the expression ho-c b-ga- ‘to teach’, illustrated in (115). The existence of such idioms, which seem reminiscent of slang expressions in present-day European languages, is typical for the Muisca language. There is a remarkable contrast with Andean languages further south, such as Aymara, Mapuche and Quechua, where this sort of idiomatic expressions are practically non-existent. 104 2 The Chibcha Sphere

At the same time, intransitive verbs of motion and position, and transitive verbs of location may differ lexically according to the number of actors involved or the shape of the theme. For instance, the intransitive verb gu- indicates ‘to be in motion (of several people)’, as in:

(127) fac chi-gu-squa outside 1S.PL-be.in.motion-IA ‘We go outside.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 316) (128) hui chi-gu-squa inside 1S.PL-be.in.motion-IA ‘We go inside.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 258)

The same verb can be used in connection with mass actors, such as water:

(129) fac a-gu-squa outside 3S-be.in.motion-IA ‘It flows out (of water).’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 317)

If there is only one actor the verb mi- is preferred, as in:

(130) hui ze-mi-squa inside 1S.SG-be.in.motion-IA ‘I go inside’, ‘I enter.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 258) (131) sua-z a-mi-squa sun-EU hanging 3S-be.in.motion-IA ‘The sun goes up.’ (lit. ‘The sun goes hanging.’) (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 317)

As we saw before, the transitive verb for ‘to put’, ‘to bring in a position’ is b-za-. However, when the object is plural pquy-ispreferred.

(132) guan ∅-b-za-squa hanging 1S.SG-T-put (singular object)-IA ‘I hang (one).’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 214) (133) guan z-∅-pquy-squa hanging 1S.SG-T-put (plural object)-IA ‘I hang (several).’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 214)

The examples (127)–(133) also nicely illustrate the use of spatial in Muisca. The usual expressions for ‘to sit’ and ‘to lie’ only differ by means of the case suffix of 2.9 The Muisca language 105 their shared complement, hicha ‘earth’. The number of people sitting or lying is relevant for the choice of the verb.

(134) hicha-n i-zo-ne earth-L 1S.SG-be (one person)-ST ‘I sit.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 196) (135) hicha-n chi-bizi-ne earth-L 1S.PL-be (several persons)-ST ‘We sit.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 196) (136) hicha-s i-zo-ne earth-PT 1S.SG-be (one person)-ST ‘I lie (down).’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 171)

Transitive verbs of eating differ according to what is eaten. The following possibilities are mentioned in the vocabularies (e.g. Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 215–16): b-so- ‘to eat (any sort of food, in particular leaves and herbs)’; b-gy- ‘to eat (bread, potatoes, roots); b-ca- ‘to eat (maize, meat, cheese, fruit, biscuits, candies)’; b-gamy- ‘to eat (honey, lard, salt, sauce)’; b-iohoty- ‘to drink’, ‘to eat (gruel)’, b-gyia- ‘to chew’, ‘to eat (sugar-cane)’. The Muisca sources contain ample evidence of loan words from Spanish, such as fin ‘wine’ (Spanish vino) and raga ‘dagger’ (Spanish daga). Verbs are incorporated in their infinitive form in -r, followed by the verb b-quy- ‘to do’.

(137) castigar ma-n-quy-nga [Spanish castigar ‘to punish’] punish 2S.SG-PS-do-F ‘You will be punished.’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 217)

The demonstratives in Muisca appear to be based on a straightforward system en- coding three degrees of distance sis(y) ‘this’, ys(y) ‘that’, as(y) ‘that (over there)’. The corresponding local adverbs (implying rest) are sinaca ‘here’, ynaca ‘there’ and anaca ‘over there’. For deictic manner adverbs we find sihic and (h)ysquy ‘thus’, which may reflect a similar distinction. In addition, there are directional adverbs, si(e) ∼ xi(e) ‘in this direction’, ysi ‘in that direction’ and asi ‘in that direction (over there)’. However, an adverb that appears to be semantically opposite to si(e) is ai,which means ‘away from the speaker’ or ‘forward’, e.g. in ai b-ta- ‘to throw (something) away’ against si b-ta- ‘to throw (something) over here’. Interrogative pronouns are heterogeneous in form: xie ∼ sie ‘who’, ipqua ‘what’, epqua-n ‘where (rest)’, epqua-c ‘where (goal)’, fi- ‘how many’, fica ‘how many (of time units)’, ‘how long ago’, fes ∼ bes ‘which’, ‘when’, hac ‘how’. All must be followed by an interrogative marker -o/-ua when used interrogatively. 106 2 The Chibcha Sphere

The reflect a system. The ten first units are ata ‘one’, boza ‘two’, mica ‘three’, muyhyca ‘four’, hyzca ‘five’, ta(a)50 ‘six’, cuhupqua ‘seven’, suhuza ‘eight’, aca ‘nine’, ubchihica ‘ten’. The list presented here has been compiled on the basis of Gonz´alez de P´erez (1987) and Quesada Pacheco (1991) in an endeavour to overcome the gaps and orthographic inconsistencies found in all these sources with respect to numerals. The numbers from ten to nineteen are formed on the basis of the root quihicha ‘foot’ followed by the respective unit, e.g. quihicha ata ‘eleven’. The word for twenty is gue-ta, based on a root gue [we]; forty is gue-boza, sixty is gue-mica, etc. Lugo mentions two series of ordinal numbers. Units of time can combine with numerals in order to refer to past units; e.g. zocam ‘year’, zocam-bo-na ‘two years ago’, zoca- mi-na ‘three years ago’. For days the suffix -na suffices: mi-na ‘day before yesterday’, muyhyca-na ‘the day before the day before yesterday’, etc. According to the vocabulary of the National Library grammar it is possible to count back using separate expressions until twenty days before the moment of speaking. Kinship terms in Muisca involve distinctions of gender of the referent (e.g. brother versus sister), gender of the person from whose viewpoint the relationship is consid- ered (e.g. sibling of man versus sibling of woman), and relative age (e.g. elder versus younger sibling). There is no distinction between son and daughter, both being called chuta.Father’s brother and mother’s sister are called father (paba) and mother (guaia), respectively, but there are separate terms for mother’sbrother (gue-cha, lit. ‘house-man’) and father’s sister (paba-fucha, lit. ‘father-woman’).

2.9.5 A Muisca text Virtually all Muisca texts known to us belong to the Roman Catholic religious domain. They can be found as appendices to all three grammars that have been preserved. An exception to the primacy of religious liturgy are two sonnets that accompany Lugo’s grammar, extolling his talents as a specialist of the Muisca language. These sonnets have been analysed and translated by Ostler (1995). A part of the remaining texts have been published and analysed in Ostler (1999). As an illustration of Muisca text we will reproduce and analyse the Lord’s Prayer as given in the catechism accompanying the National Library grammar (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 342; also in Ostler 1999).

50 The vocabulary of the National Library grammar provides an indication that the pronun- ciation of the word for ‘six’ indeed involved a sequence of two like vowels, as it writes quihichataa ˆ ([kihityataʔa]) for ‘sixteen’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 240). Lugo has only ta for ‘six’. 2.9 The Muisca language 107

1. chi-paba guate-quyca-n zon-a 1P.PL-father high-country-L be.there-PR.AG ‘Our Father who art in Heaven,’

The past and present participles of zo(n)- ‘to be there (of one person)’ are both zon-a (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 107, 109). The part following chi-paba is a relative clause with a nominalised verb (zon-a).

2. um-hyca a-chie chi-gu-squa 2P.SG-name 3P-glory 1P.PL-say-IA ‘Hallowed be thy name.’

The expression a-chie chi-gu-squa, literally, ‘we say its glory’, is given as a translation of Spanish reverenciar ‘to hallow’. So the phrase reads: ‘We hallow thy name.’

3. um-quyca chi-muys huca 2P.SG-country 1P.PL-towards come.PA.AG ‘Thy Kingdom come.’

The postposition -muysa (here shortened to -muys) indicates motion towards a person, indicated by means of a possessive prefix. The form huca is a past participle of hu- ‘to come’, used as a hortative with a third-person subject. Literally, the text reads: ‘May thy country come towards us.’

4. um-pquyquycielo-na ¸ quy-n-uca guehesca sinca-nsie a-quy-n-ynga 2P.SG-will heaven-L do-NT-PR.AG like here-out.of 3S-do-NT-F ‘Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’

The verb is quy-n- ‘to happen’, ‘to be done’, ‘to be’ (as in sua-z a-quy-n-suca ‘it is sunny’), the non-transitive pendant of b-quy-‘to do’. The present participle quy-n-uca is used in a relative clause. The word guehesca occurs twice in the prayer with the meaning ‘as’, ‘like’. The closest form attested in the grammars and vocabularies appears to be guesca ‘the size of’, as in mue m-guesca ‘your size’ (Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 321). The word for ‘here (non-motion)’ is sinaca;itappears as sinca in the present version. The ending -n-sie ∼ -n-xie indicates movement away from a place towards the speaker (cf. Ostler 1993: 13); Lugo (1619: 119) mentions the expression xinaca nxi ‘from here’. 108 2 The Chibcha Sphere

5. sua-s puynuca chi-hu-cu ma-ny-sca chi-fun ba chi-hu-cu n-u day-PT every 1P.PL-presence-AL 2S.SG-give-PR.AG 1P.PL-bread today 1P.PL-presence-AL give-IM ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’

The phrase sua-s puynuca (with sua ‘day’ in the perlative case) is a fixed expression ‘daily’. The verb forms ma-ny-sca (present participle) and n-u (imperative singular) are both derived from the transitive verb m-ny- ‘to give’. The form chi-hu-cu is a variant of chi-hu-c ‘to us’. The word ba ‘today’ is usually written fa.

6. nga chi-chubia a-apqua um-u-zi-nga and 1P.PL-debt 3S-be.enough 2S.SG-say-NE-F ‘And forgive us our trespasses.’

The root apqua ‘enough’ is preceded by a third-person subject marker a-, possibly separated from it by a boundary-marking glottal stop. Originally, a- in apqua is a prefix itself, considering the fact that pqua- occurs as a verb root with a similar meaning ‘to reach’, ‘to be enough’. The form um-u-zi-nga is derived from gu- ‘to say’, which has imperative and participle forms uz-u, uz-a without an initial g.However, considering that the corresponding third-person form is a-gu-zi-nga, the reason for the loss of initial g appears to be the shape of the second-person prefix (u)m- in this case. At the same time, the presence of a vowel u in the prefix um- shows that a consonant has been deleted immediately after the prefix. Otherwise, a form *m-u-zi-nga would be expected. The expression a-apqua (ze-)gu-squa-za means ‘to forgive’ (literally ‘not to say it matters’).

7. chie chi-huihi-n a-chubia gue a-apqua chi-gu-squa-za guehesca we 1P.PL-power 3P-debt be 3S-reach.to 1P.PL-say-IA-NE like ‘Asweforgive those who trespass against us.’

The form hui-hi-n, equivalent to hui-na,isfound with meanings such as ‘in the power of’, or referring to the creditor of a debt (Ostler 1993: 11). The expression a-chubia gue can be translated as ‘he who has a debt’.

8. pecado-ca chi-bena-n-zi-nga nzhona a-chie um-ta-zi-nga sin-AL1S.PL-roll-NT-NE-F so.that 3P-light 2S.SG-throw-NE-F ‘And lead us not into temptation.’

The intransitive verb bena-n-istranslated as ‘to roll’, ‘to fall from a state’, ‘to fall into the mud’; its transitive counterpart is m-ena- ‘to wrap’. Initial b in verb roots is lost after the transitive b-/m- prefix, which itself then appears as m-. The form nzhona ‘because’, ‘so that’ is normally written nzona. The word a-chie has been interpreted in different ways. Ostler (1999: 57) reads it as chie ‘first-person plural object’, an interpretation that 2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) 109

fits the context well. This option is furthermore supported by an alternative version of the Lord’s Prayer, which reads chieu ˆ um-ta-zi-nga ‘do not let go of us’ (from u b-ta- ‘to let go of’). However, chie ‘we’ is not normally found with a prefixed element a-. By contrast, the combination a-chie (with the third-person possessive prefix) occurs frequently in expressions referring to ‘light’, ‘clearness’, ‘honour’ and ‘blessing’ (see, for instance, a-chie gu- ‘to revere’, ‘to honour’ in line 2 of the Prayer; a-chie gue ‘(he/she is) blessed’; and a-chie-c b-chiby- ‘to look at it in the light’). A possible interpretation could then be ‘do not cast away the light (or his blessing), so that we may not roll into sin’. Perhaps, a-chie b-ta- ‘to cast (away) its light’ can be interpreted as an expression ‘to show the (wrong) way’, ‘to (mis)lead’, because the semantically underspecified verb b-ta-ispredominantly used in fixed expressions (see section 2.9.4). The negative future (um-ta-zi-nga) has the value of a negative imperative.

9. nga hataca chi-san um-pquan-ynga-co. and always 1P.PL-behalf 2S-keep.watch-F-EM ‘But deliver us from evil.’

The literal translation is: ‘And please be sure to always keep watch on our behalf.’ The element -co is translated in the National Library grammar as ‘take care that you . . .’, ‘do not forget to . . .’; Spanish: ‘mirad que...’(Gonz´alez de P´erez 1987: 160).

2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) The Chibchan people formerly known as Tunebo now prefer to use their own ethnic denomination Uwa or Uwa (‘people’); their language is called Uw Cuwa (‘people’s tongue’). Uw Cuwa is the closest living relative of Muisca and other extinct languages of the highlands of Boyac´a and Cundinamarca. But even though Uw Cuwa is in relative terms the closest living relative of Muisca, it is not in absolute terms closely related to it. Its sound system is very different from that of Muisca and much less complex. The present-day Uwa are established mainly on the northern slopes of the Sierra Nevada del Cocuy, a high mountain massif situated in the northernmost section of the department of Boyac´a, which borders on Venezuela. The dialects spoken in this area are known as Cobar´ıa and Tegr´ıa and together have the largest number of speakers. A second group of Uwa is located further west in the departments of Santander and Norte de Santander near Agua Blanca, and a third one in the tropical lowlands of Arauca and Casanare near a place called Barro Negro. The dialect differences are said to be important. Some Uwa are established in Venezuela. In most sources the estimations of the number of Uw Cuwa speakers oscillate between 1,800 and 3,600. Arango and S´anchez (1998) calculate the number of ethnic Uwa in Colombia at approximately 7,000. 110 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.10 Uw Cuwa (Tunebo) consonant inventory (from Headland 1997)

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Labio-velar Glottal

Voiceless stops t k kw ʔ Voiced stop b Fricatives ssh ˇ Nasals m n Vibrant r Oral semi-vowels w y Nasal semi-vowelw ˜

Uricoechea (1871) published a list of words in what he calls the S´ınsiga language, which was spoken near the town of Chita in Boyac´a. The exemplified language was Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) beyond any doubt. Chita is situated south of the Sierra Nevada del Cocuy massif. If Uricoechea’s information is representative, it may mean that the Uwa once occupied a larger part of the Andean highlands and that they may have had a highland origin themselves. As agriculturalists, the Uwa take advantage of the different climatological altitude levels of the mountain slopes. They give a high importance to purification rituals, which make contact with non-Uwa (who are considered impure) difficult. Until the 1980s the Uwa opposed the introduction of writing and schooling (Headland 1997: 6). At present (2001) one of their main concerns is the increased activity of oil prospectors in their traditional territory. Among the early work on Uw Cuwa, Rochereau (1926, 1927) is of particular im- portance. More recent studies by Headland (1977, 1997) are based on the Cubar´ıa and Tegr´ıa dialects. The consonant inventory of Uw Cuwa, according to Headland (1997), is represented in table 2.10. Not only is the consonant system of Uw Cuwa limited in size, the nasal consonants do not occur in initial position. This may be the reason for the great frequency of b and r in initial position. The glottal stop can only occur after the first vowel in a word. Consonant clusters are limited to syllable boundaries. Nouns normally end in a vowel a,which can be suppressed in specific syntactic environments. Uw Cuwa has five vowels: a, e, i, o, u. The location of stress is contrastive. Headland (1997: 10) explicitly states that several additional contrasts can play a role in the first syllable of a word. They include glottal closure, aspiration and vowel length. There is also mention of a high tone, which does not necessarily coincide with the stress. Mel´endez Lozano (2000b: 704) gives examples of minimal pairs contrasted by an ascending and a descending tone, such as r´uka ‘man’s nephew by sister’s side’ versus r`uka ‘clay pot’ (r´uca versus r´uuca in the transcription of Headland 1997: 168). He adds that the vowel with descending tone is phonetically long and that the contrast may be one of vowel 2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) 111 length, rather than of tone. The status of tone in Uw Cuwa clearly requires additional research. As other Chibchan languages, Uw Cuwa is predominantly verb-final. The language has no morphological personal reference markers at all (cf. Ostler 2000: 184). The personal pronouns, asa ‘I’, isa ‘we’; baʔa ‘you (sing.)’, ba:‘you (pl.)’, are used as subject, object and possessor without any further specification, a situation that is reminiscent of Cuna and the Chocoan languages. Oblique case is indicated by means of suffixes and postpositions. The goal of a motion verb, such as bi- ‘to go’, remains unmarked. In transitive sentences the actor is marked by an ergative suffix -at:

(138) b´onit-at eb y´a-ka-ro mouse-E maize eat-PN-DV ‘The mouse is eating the maize.’ (Headland 1997: 41)

The genitive marker -ay can be used to form possessive pronouns that are not in a dependent position.

(139) ireya ´ is-´ay-ro food that we-G-DV ‘That food is ours.’ (Headland 1997: 20)

Non-interrogative verb forms normally take a declarative marker -ro (138) for specific events or -kwano for general statements. The marker -ro is also added to nouns and adjectives in predicative constructions to replace the copula (139). If the sentence is interrogative, an interrogative marker (-ka or -ki for present, -ya or -yi for past) takes the place of the declarative marker.51 Anegation marker -ti- precedes the declarative marker when required. Tense formation in Uw Cuwa is subject to a complex set of morphophonemic rules (cf. Headland 1997: 27–9). Number, which is not normally indicated, is sometimes reflected by root-internal alternations (140). In other cases number of object and subject are encoded lexically (141).

(140) yeʔn-h´ak-ro yin-h´ak-ro lift.SG-PA-DV lift.PL-PA-DV ‘He/she rose up.’ ‘They rose up.’ (Headland 1997: 26) (141) kwik- eʔsu- ‘cut (one)’ ‘cut (several)’ (Headland 1997: 27)

The of Uw Cuwa shares several of the complexities of the Muisca numerals, which is evidence of the cultural environment that once united both peoples.

51 The endings in -i can be used for greater friendliness (Headland 1997: 52–3). 112 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Uw Cuwa distinguishes cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers and special expressions for counting days. Single units are counted in relation to a decimal unit that follows, not to the preceding one. These decimal units are called kes(a) ‘foot’ (compare Muisca quihicha,which has the same meaning). A literal translation of (142) would be ‘two tens and one to the third foot’.

(142) uk´asi buk´ay baw´oy kesubisti ´ 52 ten two third foot one ‘twenty-one’ (Headland 1997: 21)

2.11 Yukpa and Magdalena valley Cariban The Yukpa (or Yuco), are speakers of a complex of closely related Cariban dialects. They inhabit the Sierra de Perij´a, west of Lake Maracaibo, on both sides of the Colombian– Venezuelan border. The Yukpaare the northern neighbours of the Bar´ı and were formerly also known as the Motilones mansos ‘tame Motilones’. The number of Colombian Yukpa has been calculated at 1,500 (Robayo Moreno 2000), and is matched with an equal number in Venezuela (Jaramillo G´omez 1987b). Arango and S´anchez (1998) give a figure of about 3,500 for Colombia alone, presumably all speakers of the language. Robayo Moreno (2000) distinguishes two dialect groups in Colombia, Iroka and Sokorpa, corresponding to the two principal protected areas (resguardos) that were set apart for the Yukpain that country.The data presented show significant phonetic variation even within each of these areas. The Venezuelan varieties of Yukpa have been classified into four groups by Durbin and Seijas (1975). These are, from north to south, Japreria, Macoita–Rionegrino, Pariri–Wasama–Shaparu and Irapa, leaving a fifth dialect, Viakshi, unclassified. On the basis of mutual intelligibility Durbin (1985) concludes that the Yukpa group consists of two languages, namely, Japreria and a dialect continuum comprising all the other Yukpa varieties (Yukpa). He states that the closest relatives of the Yukpa group are extinct languages once spoken along or near the Venezuelan coast, such as Chayma, Cumanagoto and Tamanaco. The Yukpa,in turn, are the closest known linguistic relatives of the Op´on–Carare group of the Magdalena river valley (department of Santander, Colombia). Durbin and Seijas (1975) reconstruct the consonant inventory of the Yukpa proto- language, which is represented in table 2.11 below. They emphasise the fact that not all

52 The cardinal pendant of baw´oy ‘third’ is baya ‘three’. Stress is not consistently indicated in the examples of the source. Here it has been derived from the entries in the dictionary and the assumption that the rules according to which stress is written are the same as in Spanish orthography. 2.11 Yukpa and Magdalena valley Cariban 113

Table 2.11 Proto-Yukpa consonants (after Durbin and Seijas 1975)

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal

Obstruents p tck ˇ ʔ Fricatives ssh ˇ Nasals m n Vibrant r Glides w y

distinctions occur in all of the present-day dialects (especially the s/ˇs contrast and the glottal stop) and indicate the Shaparu dialect as the most conservative. Some of the Colombian dialects have a retroflex affricate [ˇc.], which corresponds to [r] or [] elsewhere. In general, the Colombian dialects appear to have innovative sound oppositions not found in Venezuela. Consonant clusters, presumably due to previous vowel loss, are frequent in these dialects.

(143) Iroka: woˇc.epa ‘woman’ (Robayo Moreno 2000: 712) Sokorpa: woepa ‘woman’ (Robayo Moreno 2000: 713) zˇ (144) Iroka d uˇs.cˇ.u ‘skin’ (Robayo Moreno 2000: 712) Irapa suruˇ ‘skin’ (Durbin and Seijas 1975: 74)

Durban and Seijas reconstruct six vowels, a, e, i, , o, u,which can be either oral, or nasal. The examples suggest that the functionality of the nasal contrast is limited. In Japreria the vowel has a value which is different from those in the other dialects. Japreria is high central [¨ı], whereas in the other dialects it is high back unrounded [ɯ]. Historically, there is no correspondence between the two sounds. Although it is plausible to assume, given the close lexical similarity, that the complex may be similar to the Cariban languages further east, very little has been published so far about its morphology and syntax. The available information is lexical and phonological. Durbin and Seijas (1975: 75) note that the relational-possessive suffix (-r, -n, etc.), which is found in other Cariban languages, such as Galibi (cf. Hoff 1968), has been reduced to glottal stop or zero. Only the Shaparu dialect has retained a consonant for that suffix. (145) Japreria, Irapa -p´ana-∅ ear-RL ‘someone’s ear’ Macoita, Rionegrino, -p´ana-ʔ Wasama, Pariri Shaparu -p´ana-t

When body parts are referred to outside the context of a person to which they belong, a prefix y()- is added to the root as in (Iroka) y-p´ana [dzˇ pa:na] ‘ear’ (Robayo Moreno 114 2 The Chibcha Sphere

2000). Constenla Uma˜na (1991: 60) distils several other typological considerations from the scanty data. Yukpa is an SVO language, in which genitives and demonstratives precede the head noun, whereas numerals and adjectives follow the head. Leaving aside the genitive word order, this is the same pattern as the one found in the Chibchan languages. The survival well into the twentieth century of indigenous groups in the Op´on and Carare river areas in the Colombian department of Santander constitutes unequivocal proof of the advance of Cariban-speaking peoples along the Magdalena valley. Separate word lists for Op´on and Carare were published by von Lengerke (1878), and further (undifferentiated) Op´on–Carare material was collected in 1944 by Pineda and Fornaguera (1958). The latter source is also presented in Landaburu (1998). It includes an account of a deadly feud between the Op´on and the Carare, which brought both groups to the vergeofextinction in 1914. Durbin and Seijas (1973a) report that there must have been at least five speakers in 1944, one of whom was in his twenties. Durbin and Seijas (1973a) noted considerable differences between the Op´on and Carare lists of von Lengerke, on the one hand, and the Op´on–Carare lists of Pineda and Fornaguera, on the other. The latter seems to represent a divergent dialect with respect to the other two. An interesting feature of this dialect is the widespread occurrence of a suffix -id/-in/-iny,which may be historically identical to the relational-possessive suffix of other Cariban languages, e.g. in pot´a-id ‘mouth’ (Macoita Yukpa p´ota-ʔ) and in pan´a-iny ‘ear’ (Macoita Yukpa p´ana-ʔ). In several respects Op´on–Carare is more conservative than Yukpa. It conserves the Cariban root *tuna in tun´a-iny ‘water’, where Yukpa varieties have k´una(-ʔ), and the r in yor-id ‘tooth’, where Yukpa has yi(-ʔ), y or dzˇʔ; cf. also Pineda Giraldo’s comparative word list in Landaburu (1998: 531–5). The existence of a Cariban speaking group in an Inter-Andean setting, such as the Magdalena valley, opens the possibility of a wider distribution of Cariban peoples in the area. For several nations of great historical importance, namely, the Colima, the Muzo, the Panche, the Pant´agora and the Pijao, a Cariban linguistic affiliation has often been proposed. All these peoples have long been extinct, except for the Pijao of the department of Tolima. In 1943 Pijao word lists were collected in the municipality of Ortega by Alicia and Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, as well as by Roberto Pineda Giraldo and Milc´ıades Chaves (Durbin and Seijas 1973b). The Pijao language is now considered extinct as well. Durbin and Seijas (1973b) suggest that all these languages should be left unclassi- fied, because the extremely limited data do not provide enough evidence for a Cariban affiliation. This is certainly true of Panche, for which there are almost no data. The main reason to assume a Cariban affiliation for Panche is the existence of a large number of place names in -aima, -oima and -ima,which are highly suggestive of Cariban toponymy 2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast 115 in Venezuela and the Guyanas.53 The Panche terms acaima ‘important personage’and colima ‘cruel assassin’, mentioned by Durbin and Seijas (1973b: 51), show that this end- ing was also used for human beings. Similar features can be found in the Muzo–Colima and Pijao domains.54 The Colima, Muzo and Pijao word lists contain a few items of basic vocabulary that point at a Cariban connection (cf. Constenla Uma˜na 1991: 62–3). It appears possible to detect a common sound innovation in the three languages, when some of these lexical items are compared to their counterparts in other Cariban languages, such as Galibi (Hoff 1968).

(146) Pijao: t´ana Galibi: tu:na ‘water’ Pijao: t´ape Colima, Muzo: tapa Galibi: to:pu ‘stone’

The Cariban elements found in Colima, Muzo and Pijao do not suggest a specific relationship with Op´on–Carare and Yukpa. They may reflect an older Cariban invasion of the Magdalena valley, or they may represent conservative traits that have not been preserved in the northern languages. For instance, the Pijao word for ‘moon’ n´una is found in many Cariban languages, but not in Op´on–Carare and Yukpa, where it is kan´o-ny and k´unu, respectively (Durbin and Seijas 1973b: 49).

2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast Two closely related Arawakan languages are located in the area separating the northern Andes from the Caribbean coast, Guajiro and Paraujano.With more than 300,000 speakers Guajiro or Wayuunaiki (‘language of the ’) may very well be the fastest growing indigenous language of the area covered by this book. Its original homeland is the , shared by Colombia and Venezuela. The Guajiro language can be subdivided into two main dialects, a northern peninsular dialect called arribero or winpumin ‘towards the waters’ and a southern inland dialect called abajero or wopumin ‘towards the roads’ (P´erez van Leenden 2000). A large part of the Guajira peninsula belongs to Colombia and, consequently, a ma- jority of the Guajiro people used to reside in that country. However, this situation has been reversed in the past decades. A vigorous colonisation process is taking place in the Venezuelan state of Zulia towards the shores of Lake Maracaibo and the town of Maracaibo itself. Alvarez (1994: 10) records the following increase in the statistics of the Guajiro speakers in Venezuela: 16,793 in 1950; 52,000 in 1982; 179,318 in 1992. This last figure covers more than 50 per cent of the present-day indigenous population

53 The ending -im is used as an augmentative in several Cariban languages of the Guyanas, e.g. in Trio (Eithne Carlin, personal communication). 54 Personal names, which occur abundantly in the historical sources, are rarely exploited in linguis- tic reconstruction. The Muzo area, for instance, is characterised by a great incidence of personal names in -p´ı, e.g. Boquip´ı, Quinancep´ı (Rodr´ıguez Baquero 1995). 116 2 The Chibcha Sphere in Venezuela. The Colombian Guajiro have been calculated at 144,000 (Arango and S´anchez 1998). The spectacular growth in the number of Venezuelan Guajiro is dif- ficult to explain by natural increase alone. Immigration from Colombia and statistical underexposure in the past may provide an explanation. By contrast, Paraujano or A˜n´un is on the verge of extinction. The Paraujano (‘beach people’, from Guajiro palauhe ‘from by the beach’) inhabit the coast and islands between Maracaibo and the Guajira peninsula. The last speakers of the language live in villages of pile-dwellings located in the Lagoon of Sinamaica, north of Maracaibo.55 In the 1980s only a few aged people continued to speak the language (Patte 1986). Alvarez (1994) estimates the number of Paraujano speakers at less than a dozen.56 As a consequence of the Caribbean background of Guajiro and Paraujano, they do not share many typological features with the languages of the Andean and Chibchan spheres. Together with , the Arawakan language of the Guyanas, and the extinct Arawakan languages of the Caribbean islands, Guajiro and Paraujano constitute a north- ern, Caribbean branch of the Arawakan language family (Payne 1991a), referred to by Payne as Ta-Arawak on the account of the shape of the first-person prefix, which is ta- (or da-)inthese languages. This feature separates Guajiro and Paraujano from eastern Colombian Arawakan languages, such as Achagua and Piapoco, which use the more widespread Arawakan marker nu- for that purpose. In relation to Lokono and the Arawakan languages of the Lesser (St Vincent, ), Guajiro is phonologically innovative. At least one innovation, the devel- opment of *k to glottal stop in intervocalic position, has affected borrowings from Spanish, e.g. pa:ʔa ‘cow’ (from Spanish vaca). Some of the first Amerindian words borrowed by the Spaniards after their occupation of the Caribbean islands, as well as terms recorded in by the sixteenth-century chronicler Fern´andez de Oviedo, have a shape that could be derived directly from Guajiro (cf. Taylor 1978: 123). It sug- gests that Guajiro must have been closely related to Ta´ıno, the extinct native language

55 It is to settlements like those of the Paraujano that the country owes its name of Venezuela (‘Little Venice’). 56 Durbin and Seijas (1973a), also Durbin (1985: 349), mention a third Arawakan language in the northern Colombian Andes, Hacaritama, allegedly a close relative of Guajiro. Hacari- tama was the name of the sixteenth-century inhabitants of the province of Oca˜na in the department of Norte de Santander (online information 2001 ‘Rese˜na hist´orica de Oca˜na’ http://www.cocota.com/histcult/resea.htm). A word list collected near the town of Hacar´ı (La Palma) was published by Justiniano P´aez in 1936. Rivet and Armellada (1950) elaborate on the context in which this list was collected: in 1912 a settlement of agricultural workers was at- tacked and all but wiped out by (Bar´ı?) Indians. Consequently, the police detained three Guajiro, whowere travelling through the area. They probably provided the data for P´aez’s ‘Hacaritama’ list, which is clearly Guajiro. The real affiliation of the Hacaritama language, if it ever existed, remains undetermined. 2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast 117

Table 2.12 Guajiro consonant inventory (Alvarez 1994; Mansen and Captain 2000)

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal

Stops p t k ʔ Affricatec ˇ Fricatives ssh ˇ Nasals m n Flap l [] Trill r [rr] Glides w y

of Hispaniola, even when compared to other documented Arawakan languages of the Caribbean.

(147) Spanish aj´ı < *aˇs´ı Guajiro haˇs´ı ‘hot pepper’ cf. Lokono haˇci (< *h´athi) (148) Spanish aje < *aˇ´se Guajiro h´aiˇsi ‘sweet potato’ cf. Lokono haliˇci (< *h´alithi)

The existing linguistic literature on the Guajiro language is substantial. We shall only mention a few studies, such as Celed´on (1878), Holmer (1949), Hildebrandt (1963), Olza and Jusay´u (1978), Jusay´u and Olza (1981, 1988), Goulet (1981), Alvarez (1985, 1993, 1994, 1996), Mansen and Captain (2000), and Mosonyi and Mosonyi (2000). ForParaujano see Patte (1978, 1981, 1989). The Guajiro language is taught at the universities of (Colombia) and Zulia (Maracaibo, Venezuela). There have been several standardisation efforts, and the language benefits from an official status in the state of Zulia, Venezuela. The following short overview of characteristics of the Guajiro language is based mainly on Alvarez (1994). The sound system of Guajiro is relatively limited and straightforward. The consonants are shown in table 2.12. In our presentation of Guajiro we follow the habit of writing l and r for two vibrants that are characteristic of the language. The sound symbolised by l has been described as a combination of a slightly retracted Spanish r with a lateral sound. It is, in the terminology of Ladefoged (1975), a flap, rather than a tap. In order to produce this sound, the tip of the tongue is at first folded backwards and then projected against the upper alveolars before reaching a rest position (cf. Alvarez 1994: 61–2). The sound written r is a trill, comparable to Spanish rr and the corresponding sound of Bar´ı, Damana and Chocoan. The alternation between l, r and t plays an important role in Guajiro morphophonemics. This morphophonemic alternation extends to loan words, where l is replaced by t in 118 2 The Chibcha Sphere syllable-final position, e.g. p:tpra, Spanish p´olvora ‘gunpowder’ (Taylor 1978: 125); katsu:na, Spanish calz´on ‘trousers’. Guajiro has six vowels, which can either be short or long: a, e, i, o, u, . The is a high central vowel. Vowel length is contrastive. Guajiro has a predictable pitch accent. Vowel length and accent are not interrelated. Word-final vowels, for instance, whether long or short, can but need not be accented. The accent rules are described in Alvarez (1994: 13–37). If the first syllable is heavy (that is, if it ends in a long vowel, a diph- thong or a consonant), it is accented. If it is light (that is, if it ends in a short vowel), the second syllable is accented. If the first syllable ends in a glottal stop, that sylla- bleisnot counted for the assignment of the accent. In that case the second syllable is accented when it is heavy. If it is light, the accent moves to a third syllable when avail- able. Alvarez considers initial CV ʔ- sequences to be extrametrical syllables (cf. Hayes 1982).

(149) atpana:´ ‘rabbit’ aya ´ ʔlaha: ‘to buy’ aʔyal´aha: ‘to cry’ (Alvarez 1994: 15)

Apparent exceptions, such as eiʔr´aka: ‘to threaten’ and eikk´ahawa: ‘to transport’ may be re-analysed as regular e-ʔir´aka-: and e-ʔik´aha-wa:, respectively (Alvarez 1994: 32–3). Such an analysis is justified by the morphological structure of the forms in question. They contain the ‘zero person’ prefix a- (e-/o-) followed by a root with an initial glottal stop (-V: and -wa: are allomorphs of the infinitive ending). A comparison with the related forms ni-ʔir´ak-in ‘he threatens’and ni-ʔik´aha:-in ‘he transports’ (ni- ‘3rd person masculine’; -in ‘present’) reveals the existence of a glottal stop in the underlying root. The word order of the Guajiro language is verb-initial with a preference for VSO order. Adjectives and the possessor in a genitive construction follow the noun they modify. In a comparison of word order in several northern Arawakan languages, Wise (1991) observes that Guajiro is the only language that has verb-initial word order. In an environment, such as Colombia, where almost all the indigenous languages are verb-final, this is quite remarkable. In Guajiro, non-verbal elements that occur in sentence-initial position, including and adverbs, normally function as predicates (there is no copula). Such predicative elements can be followed by a rel- ative or a subordinate clause in a sort of cleft construction (150). The tense and as- pect markers and gender-number markers (see below) of the subordinate verb are then transferred to the predicate (151).57 An example with a fronted interrogative pronoun is (152).

57 The same holds for Paraujano (Patte, cited in Alvarez 1994: 105). 2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast 119

(150) u:holu ta-s-e:-ka chicha 1S.SG-drink-DE-DF ‘It is chicha I want to drink.’ (Alvarez 1994: 97) (151) tay-e:-ˇci o-ʔuna-ka maikoʔu-min I-F-S.MS ZP-go-DF -AL ‘I am the one who will go to Maicao.’ (Alvarez 1994: 96) (152) hara-l-e:-r p-a:pira-ka ya: which-FE-F-O.FE 2S.SG-warn-DF Q ‘Whom (feminine) are you going to warn?’ (Alvarez 1994: 103)

One of the most common ways to indicate negation is by means of the nnoho-lu-.58 It is followed by a verb with the subordinative ending -in; tense, aspect and gender-number markers are added to the negative verb (153).

(153) nnoho-l-e:-ˇci ta-sa-k-in kami:r not.be-MS-F-O.MS 1S.SG-greet-TS-SU Camilo ‘I shall not greet Camilo.’ (Alvarez 1994: 98)

From a morphological point of view, Guajiro is a complex language, even by Andean standards. The morphological devices are prefixation, suffixation and root . The suffixes may number more than a hundred all together. The prefixes are limited both in number and in function. Most of them are personal reference markers, which can either refer to the subject of a verb, or to the possessor of a noun. One prefix indicates non-specified personal reference (‘zero person’). Two other prefixes, ka- and ma-, indicate possession (‘having’) and non-possession (‘not having’), respectively. All prefixes consist of a consonant and a short vowel (zero person consists of a vowel alone). The vowels are variable and can be either non-high (basically a)orhigh (basically ). Both are subject to different types of fusion (with an adjacent vowel) or harmony (with a non-adjacent root vowel). An intervening consonant can also influence the choice of the prefix vowel, depending on whether it is coronal (alveolar and palatal) or not (Alvarez 1990, 1994: 39–59). The rules of fusion and harmony are quite opaque. Guajiro personal prefixes and pronouns encode person, number and gender, as represented in table 2.13. Two types of possession, alienable and inalienable, are distinguished. Nouns can be marked for inalienable possession by the addition of a personal-reference prefix (154). If the possession is alienable a special relational form of the noun must be used. Relational forms normally contain one of a set of special suffixes (155). The existence of such relational suffixes is frequent in the Amazonian region, in Central America and

58 The initial n in nnoho-lu- represents a syllabic nasal necessary to account for the fact that the first (and not the second) o in this form is accented [nn´ohou...]. ˚ 120 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.13 Personal prefixes and pronouns in Guajiro (based on Jusay´u and Olza 1988; Alvarez 1994; Mansen and Captain 2000)

Prefixes Pronouns Singular Plural Singular Plural

1 pers. ta- wa- taya waya 2 pers. p-h- pia hia 3 pers. masc. n- na- nia naya 3 pers. fem. h- ∼ s-* hia ∼ sia*ˇ zero pers. a-

* The s- and siaˇ forms of the 3 pers. fem. are characteristic of the abajero dialect. in Mesoamerica. In the Andean region it is limited to a few languages (Atacame˜no, Mochica). For a detailed treatment of relational forms in Guajiro see Alvarez (1996).

(154) ta-ye: 1P.SG-tongue ‘my tongue’ (Alvarez 1994: 87) (155) ta-kulu:t-se [kulu:lu‘cloth’] 1P.SG-cloth-RL ‘my cloth’ (Alvarez 1994: 67)

In a genitive construction, in which the possessor follows the possessed, the latter is referred to by a noun with a possessive prefix (156).

(156) n-ˇsi kami:ru 3P.SG.MS-father Camilo ‘Camilo’s father’ (Alvarez 1996: 31)

In Guajiro the subject and object roles remain unmarked. There is a set of relational stems that function as oblique case markers. They can take possessive personal-reference prefixes, forming a possessive phrase with their complement (157).

(157) a-tunku-ˇsi59 kami:r hu-luʔut si-ka-l ZP-sleep-S.MS Camilo 3P.FE-inside the.FE .DF.FE ‘Camilo sleeps in the hammock.’ (Alvarez 1994: 125)

59 ‘To sleep’ is -tunka- (infinitive a-tunka-:); the vowel change (a > u)istriggered by the high vowelinthe suffix. Mosonyi (1993: 176) notes an unrounded vowel in at´unk¨ushi tay´a [a-tunk-ˇsi taya]. 2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast 121

Alternatively, a relational stem can take a zero person prefix and cluster syntactically with the verb. The logical complement of the relational stem is then raised to argument position (either subject or object), and the relational stem takes gender-number marking (see below) in agreement with the raised complement. For instance, in (158) t si-ka-l ‘the hammock’ can be seen as the direct object of -tunka a-luʔu ‘to use something to sleep in’.

(158) ta-tunka a-luʔu-lu t si-ka-l 1S-sleep ZP-inside-O.FE the.FE hammock.DF.FE ‘I sleep in the hammock.’ (Alvarez 1994: 163)

Finally, the relational stems can be affixed to nouns (159).

(159) pi-pia-luʔu [pi:ˇci ‘house’; relational form: -pia] 2S.SG-house-inside ‘in your house’ (Alvarez 1994: 63)

One of the most remarkable features of Guajiro is its gender–number system, which comprises three categories, masculine singular, feminine singular and plural. The fem- inine singular is in reality the least marked category and does not exclusively refer to female beings. A more appropriate qualification may be ‘non-masculine non-plural’. These three categories are encoded morphologically by means of a set of markers that emerge in various agreement positions in the sentence, as well as lexically. Demon- stratives, personal pronouns (third person only), nouns marked for definiteness, verbal subject prefixes and possessive prefixes (third person only), the (suffixed) object of a transitive verb in a non-present tense, and the (suffixed) subject of a non-transitive verb must be specified for gender–number. Some of these uses are illustrated in (160)–(163); see also (157).

(160) t mayaht-ka-l60 [mayahl ‘young lady’] the.FE young.lady-DF-FE ‘the young lady’ (Alvarez 1994: 129) (161) ta-sa-k-e:-ˇci pia 1S.SG-greet-F-O.MS you ‘I shall greet you (man).’ (Alvarez 1994: 100) (162) haˇsiˇci-s tare:sa be.angry-S.FE Teresa ‘Teresa is angry.’ (Alvarez 1994: 93)

60 In Mansen and Captain’s description (2000) of the Colombian abajero dialect this ending is described as -ka-t. 122 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(163) koʔu=koʔu-t-ˇsi: tepiˇci-ka-na na-la-irua silent-TS-S.PL child-DF-PL DC.PL-DT-PL ‘Those children are silent.’ (Alvarez 1994: 81)

Examples (157) and (160) furthermore exemplify the use of prenominal definite articles: t (feminine), ciˇ (masculine) and na (plural). When following a noun, they are interpreted as proximate demonstratives: ‘this’, ‘these’ (Jusay´u and Olza 1988). Other demonstrative pronouns are derived by the affixation of one of the elements -la/-ra,-sa and -(y)a,which express an ascending scale of remoteness, e.g. na-la ‘those’ in (163) exemplifies the use of -la/-ra with the lowest degree of remoteness. Example (163), furthermore, contains a plural marker -irua,which functions independently from the gender–number system. Another remarkable feature of the Guajiro language is the existence of two competing verbal conjugation types. The first type involves the use of personal reference prefixes, which identify the subject. If the verb is transitive, an object can be specified by means of gender–number suffixes under certain restrictions. This type of conjugation has been called prefixal (Hildebrandt 1963) or synthetic (Alvarez 1994). In the second conjugation type, the subject of the verb is expressed by means of a free pronoun, located after the verb in accordance with the word-order rules of the language. The verb may carry gender–number suffixes, but these refer to the subject (not to the object) of the verb. This type of conjugation has been characterised as analytic. Guajiro makes a formal distinction between active and stative verbs. Stative verbs cannot take any personal reference prefixes. As a result they can only be used in the analytic conjugation. Active verbs that are used in the analytic conjugation must fill their prefix position with a ‘zero person’ marker. The difference between the two conjugation types is illustrated in (164) and (165) with an active transitive verb (‘to buy’). The first example illustrates the analytic type, whereas the second exemplifies the synthetic type.

(164) a-yaʔla-h-e:-ˇci piaci ˇ ka:ʔula-ka-i ZP-buy-TS-F-S.MS you the.MS goat-DF-MS ‘You will buy the he-goat.’ (Alvarez 1994: 115) (165) p-yaʔla-h-e:-ˇcici ˇ ka:ʔula-ka-i 2S.SG-buy-TS-F-O.MS the.MS goat-DF-MS ‘You will buy the he-goat.’ (Alvarez 1994: 115)

The division of labour between the synthetic and analytic conjugations is based on the syntactic environment in which the verb occurs. In subordinate clauses active verbs are conjugated synthetically, whereas stative verbs are in the analytic construction. In main clauses, however, a more elusive situation obtains. The synthetic conjugation is limited to transitive verbs with a definite object, whereas the analytic conjugation can be used under any circumstances. It means that transitive verbs without a definite object, 2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast 123 along with all intransitive and stative verbs, are conjugated analytically. When a verb is transitive and its object is definite, the two conjugation types are in competition. The numerous morphological devices of Guajiro include the formation of a passive (suffix -na/-n). Interestingly, Guajiro exhibits a proliferation of pseudo-passive con- structions, in which not the patient but some oblique complement is raised to the subject position. The nature of its function is made explicit by the presence of a relational stem with a zero person prefix. Example (166) illustrates the use of such a pseudo-passive construction, in which an original comitative complement plays the subject role. The construction is part of a relative clause. The comitative function is indicated by a re- lational stem with zero person prefix a-ma: ‘with’. The agent is introduced by another relational stem: -tuma ‘by’.

(166) t-eʔr-in t mahayl a-yonna-h-na-ka-l a-ma: nu-tuma kami:r 1S.SG-see-PR the.FE young.lady ZP-dance-TS-PS-DF-FE ZP-with 3P.SG-by Camilo ‘I saw the girl that has been danced with by Camilo.’ (Alvarez 1994: 127)

Several types of root reduplication occur in the Guajiro language. Their functions and shape are reminiscent of those of the reduplication types found in Quechua (see chapter 3) and in Mapuche (see chapter 5). Alvarez (1994: 75–86) describes one type of reduplication in detail. A large group of stative verbs consisting of a root followed by a thematic suffix -ta- refer to bodily positions, attitudes, etc. Plurality of subject can be expressed by the root in reduplicated form, followed by a thematic suffix -l- or any of its allomorphs (-lu-, -r-). The allomorph -lu- is required after rounded back vowels.

(167) waya-ta- ‘to be stretched’, ‘to be spread out’ waya=waya-l- ‘to be stretched (several)’, ‘to be spread out (several)’ (168) koʔu-ta- ‘to be silent’ koʔu=koʔu-lu- ‘to be silent (several)’

The Guajiro language contains a number of interesting neologisms. The word for ‘horse’, a very important animal in Guajiro society, is ama. This word originally had the meaning of ‘tapir’, which is now called lanta (from Spanish danta). The word for ‘aeroplane’ is presented and analysed in (169).

(169) ka-tna-s-ka-l OS-arm-FE-DF-FE ‘she who has arms’ (Alvarez 1994: 129)

Guajiro has a fully developed decimal system. The unit numbers are: wane ‘one’, piama ‘two’, apnin ‘three’, pienˇci ‘four’, haʔra(l)i ‘five’, aipirua ‘six’, akaraiˇsi 124 2 The Chibcha Sphere

‘seven’, meki:sal ‘eight’, meki:e:tasal ‘nine’,61 poʔlo: ‘ten’ (Celed´on 1878; Jusay´u and Olza 1988). In multiples of ten hiki:, rather than poʔlo:,isused. The multiplier precedes hiki:,asinpienˇci hiki: ‘forty’. When added to tens, units receive the allative marker -min and follow poʔlo: or hiki:. Numerals may take gender affixes. They precede the noun they modify.

2.13 Timote–Cuica At the time of the arrival of the Spaniards, the area of the present-day Venezuelan high mountain states of M´erida and Trujillo was inhabited by relatively highly developed agriculturalists, who were speakers of the Timote–Cuica language family. They produced adiversity of cultivated plants, such as maize, potatoes and cotton on agricultural terraces situated on the high Andean slopes. The chronicler Juan de Castellanos (1589) described some of the customs and religious practices of these people in his Eleg´ıas de Varones Ilustres de Indias (Part II: Eleg´ıa III) in an account of the conquest of the Trujillo area. The area was first penetrated by Spaniards in 1548, and the main city M´erida was founded in 1558 (Wagner 1967). According to tradition, the Cuica people of the Trujillo region received the newcomers peacefully, in contrast with the more warlike Timote, who inhabited the area of M´erida. There is no certainty about the question whether Timote and Cuica were different languages or dialects of one language. In view of the geographic situation some local variation could be expected. Cuica was spoken in the Andes from Humocaro in the state of Lara to Jaj´oatthe Trujillo–M´erida state border. In the southeast it included the area of Bocon´o and Niquitao, and in the northwest it included the area west of Valera (Betijoque, Escuque), not far from Lake Maracaibo. The Timote language occupied the central valley of the Motat´an and Chama rivers from the town of Timotes to the area of La Grita in T´achira state. In the northwest Timote place names can be found on the slopes descending towards Lake Maracaibo (Mucujepe, Torondoy). South of M´erida, the Timote area included the area of Mucutuy and Mucuchach´ı. After the Spanish occupation, the remaining Indian population was concentrated in a number of special villages. Their descendants have survived until today, but their languages were gradually lost until they became extinct at some moment in the first half of the twentieth century. Most of the information on the Timote and Cuica languages wasgathered by local scholars, such as Tulio Febr´es Cordero, Am´ılcar Fonseca and Jos´e Ignacio Lares at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was brought together and discussed in an insightful article by Rivet (1927). Jahn (1927) provides ample anthropological data on the area, including more word lists. Some of Jahn’s vocabulary and sentences correspond quite closely to Fonseca’sCuica examples, reproduced in Rivet

61 Mosonyi and Mosonyi (2000) have akaratˇsi ‘seven’, mek:isat ‘eight’, mekiʔetsat ‘nine’. 2.13 Timote–Cuica 125

(1927). Jahn (1927: 326), however, identifies his own data as Timote, insisting that Cuica and Timote were in fact one language. Although the Timote and Cuica languages are considered extinct, information dated 1977 (from Merrill Seely) that has appeared in recent editions of the (e.g. Grimes 1996) refers to a language allegedly spoken in the locality of Mut´us above Pueblo Llano in the state of . Pueblo Llano is a high mountain town, situated in the state of M´erida (not Barinas), off the M´erida–Barinas road. The matter calls for urgent action because an indigenous language preserved in that area would almost certainly be avariety of Timote, originally the dominant speech in the region. The word Mut´us is reminiscent of the prefixed root Mucu,acharacteristic element of Timote toponymy (e.g. Mucuch´ıes, Mucubaj´ı, Mucurub´a, Mucuj´un, etc.). It may have been a word for ‘people’, ‘community’ or ‘village’, and it is so frequent that a well-known Venezuelan scholar, Julio C. Salas, saw it as a suitable replacement for the name Timote (Rivet 1927: 140). Even though the Timote and Cuica materials are very limited and mainly lexical in nature, a thorough analysis of what is available and a comparison with other languages of the area could be rewarding. At first sight, there is no similarity whatsoever with the surrounding Arawakan, Cariban and Chibchan languages. Rivet attempted to compare Timote and Cuica vocabulary items with P´aez and a series of highly divergent languages of the Chibchan family. Some interesting lexical similarities emerge, but no overall picture. Rivet (1927: 148) himself emphasises that Timote–Cuica must be considered to be an independent family. Rivet also traced some of the morphological characteristics of Timote and Cuica. A striking feature of these languages is the existence of a set of prefixes that seem to convey gender and number distinctions. These prefixes appear to function in an agreement system. Consider the following examples from Mucuch´ı and Mirrip´uTimote.

(170) mi-sn´un mi-ndok CL-woman CL-old ‘old woman’ (Rivet 1927: 144)

The prefix mi-isinterpreted by Rivet as a generic or collective prefix. The form mi-sn´un can be compared to cu-sn´ˇ u ‘woman’. The latter form contains a prefix cuˇ -, which may have an individualising function since it is opposed to ti- ‘plural’.

(171) cu-sepˇ CL-Spaniard ‘a Spaniard’ (Rivet 1927: 145) (172) ti-sep PL-Spaniard ‘the Spaniards’ (Rivet 1927: 144) 126 2 The Chibcha Sphere

According to Rivet, the Cuica prefixes kas- and kus- (less frequently ka- and ku-) are used for masculine and feminine human beings, respectively. Jahn (1927: 403) interprets the prefix kus-/ku- as a first-person possessive prefix ‘my’, and ka-asasecond-person possessive prefix. This interpretation is problematic, considering that an ‘I’ and ih ‘you’ (see below) can also function as possessive markers. A possible solution could be that the use of ka(s)- and ku(s)- as possessive markers may have been limited to (human) relatives. The Cuica data appear to contain evidence both for a gender, and a possessive interpretation.

(173) kas-taita kus-man MS/2P-father FE/1P-mother ‘the father’ (or ‘your father’) ‘the mother’ (or ‘my mother’) (Rivet 1927: 145) (174) ka-ˇsik ku-ˇsik MS/2P-sibling FE/1P-sibling ‘brother’ (or ‘your sibling’) ‘sister’ (or ‘my sibling’) (Rivet 1927: 145)

Double marking or repetition of (the same) prefixes is not unusual, as can be seen in (175).

(175) kus-ku-ˇsik FE/1P-FE/1P-sibling ‘the sister’ (or ‘my sister’) (Rivet 1927: 145)

An extremely frequent nominal prefix in Cuica is kiu-. It also occurs as ki-, in par- ticular before k or h followed by a rounded vowel, and as kiuk-. It may be related to a demonstrative kiu in Timote. Interestingly, kiu(k)- is sometimes found with borrowed roots (Rivet 1927: 144–5, 147).

(176) kiu-pa ‘road’ ki-hutn, kiu-hutn ‘dog’ kiu-misa ‘table’ [Spanish mesa] kiuk-mis ‘cat’ [old Spanish miche]

Suffixes are less frequent than prefixes. Rivet found a diminutive suffix -is and an augmentative -ˇc in Cuica.

(177) kˇcu-is bird-DI ‘small bird’ (Rivet 1927: 146) 2.13 Timote–Cuica 127

(178) kiak-ˇc Indian-AU ‘tall Indian’ (Rivet 1927: 147)

Rivet identified the personal pronouns an and ih for first and second person, respec- tively. These elements can precede a noun in order to identify its possessor. Example (179) is from Mucuch´ıTimote, (180)–(182) are from Cuica.

(179) an koip´u I hat ‘my hat’ (Rivet 1927: 146) (180) an kamo heu euntz Ifive be child ‘I have got five children.’ (Rivet 1927: 146) (181) ih kiu-tsaos you CL-corncob ‘your corncobs’62 (Rivet 1927: 146) (182) ma-p´e ti-t-kinak ih eunts heup63 how.many-IR PL-PL-son you child be ‘How many children do you have?’ (Rivet 1927: 146)

Verbal morphology is poorly represented in the data. It appears to be rudimentary. One of the few clear cases is an imperative prefix ma-. The element ok in (184) has been interpreted as a third-person pronoun (Jahn 1927: 403). It may also have had an aspectual function. Example (183) is from Mucuch´ıTimote, (184) from Cuica.

(183) ma-famsumpi´ ˇ u IM-bring water ‘Bring water!’ (Rivet 1927: 146) (184) ku-ˇsik ok na kfok FE/1P-sibling he/she sweep house ‘My sister sweeps the house.’ (Rivet 1927: 145)

Word order in Cuica and Timote appears to be SVO, as could be seen in (184) and in the example (185) from Mucuch´ıTimote.

62 The translation of this example is plural, even though ‘corncobs’ has more expectedly also been recorded as ti-tsaos. 63 A difference in use between heu and heup (‘there is’) could not be derived from the examples. 128 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(185) mi-n-gu´e tikas´e tis-kainak64 [ku´e ‘hawk’; Spanish gallina ‘hen’] CL-EU(?)-hawk seize PL-hen ‘The hawk seized the hens.’ (Rivet 1927: 144)

Oblique case relations are indicated by means of prepositions, some of which are also used adverbially. The use of (u)du in (186) and in (187) illustrates this. Example (187) is from Cuica; (186) may be Cuica as well (see above the remark on Jahn’s data).

(186) an niˇs´ıduk(u)-ˇsund´ok Ilive with FE/1P-wife ‘I live with my wife.’ (Jahn 1927: 408) (187) ti-kˇsoi teuk udu PL-youngster go together ‘The boys go together.’ (Rivet 1927: 144)

Adjectives can either follow or precede the noun they modify; the former option appears to be the more usual one, as the following Cuica examples show.

(188) kiu-hutn toi CL-dog fat ‘the fat dog’65 (Rivet 1927: 147) (189) nisisi ku-neu ksoy beautiful FE-girl youngster ‘a beautiful girl’ (Rivet 1927: 148)

The materials are quite explicit for as far as numerals are concerned. The system is decimal. From six on, the number names are morphologically composed: ‘one’ kar´ı; ‘two’ xem ∼ xen; ‘three’ sutˇ ∼ sut ∼ hisxut (Timote), suentˇ (Cuica); ‘four’ pit (Timote), pit´ı (Cuica); ‘five’ kab´o ∼ kabok (Timote), kam´o (Cuica); ‘six’ kasum ∼ kaks´un ∼ kaps´un (Timote), katseunt (Cuica); ‘seven’ mai-xem ∼ mai-x´en (Timote), ma-en (Cuica); ‘eight’ mai-xut ∼ mai-sxut (Timote), mabi-ˇsuent (Cuica); ‘nine’ mai-pit (Timote), mabi-pita (Cuica); ‘ten’ tab´ıs. Multipliers precede the tens; units follow the tens, e.g. hisxut tab´ıs ‘thirty’, tab´ıs hisxut ‘thirteen’. Numerals precede the nouns they modify. From a phonological point of view the languages are remarkable for their word- initial consonant clusters, e.g. in (Cuica) trindu ‘flower’, (Cuica) kˇcu ‘bird’, (Cuica) stots ‘blood’, (Timote) klef ‘rainy season’. This phenomenon is more conspicuous in Cuica than in Timote. Loan words from Spanish, often heavily transformed, are found in both languages; e.g. Timote ti-fuix ∼ cu-fu´ˇ es ‘green peas’ (Spanish arveja), Cuica kiu- trik´u ∼ kiu-trik ‘wheat’ (Spanish trigo). An interesting word which suggests a borrowing

64 The prefix tis-isavariant of ti- ‘plural’ (possibly a double marker). 65 Fat puppies, called mucuch´ıes, are a speciality of the region. 2.14 Jirajaran 129 relation with Quechua is Cuica fotuto ‘a musical instrument’ (compare Quechua pututu ‘shell-trumpet’). The German conquistador Niklaus Federmann also reported the use of a shell-trumpet called botuto during his voyage to the interior of Coro in 1530 (L´opez 1985: 62). It was used as a war signal among the Jirajaran Ayam´an.

2.14 Jirajaran The Jirajaran language family is represented by several peoples who lived in a moun- tainous region in western Venezuela now covered by the states of Lara and Falc´on and surrounding areas. Separated from the Caribbean coast only by the peaceful (Arawakan) Caquet´ıo, the Jirajarans suffered the full impact of predatory European colonisation dur- ing the first half of the sixteenth century. Best known among the Jirajaran groups were the Jirajara (referred to as Xidehara in Federmann’saccount), the Ayam´an (or Ayom´an), reputed for their small size, and the Gay´on.Inspite of the violent events to which they fell victim during the sixteenth century, the Jirajarans, who were known for their brav- ery, managed to survive until the twentieth century. Some data of Jirajara, Ayam´an and Gay´on were collected during the first decades of the twentieth century, mainly by Oramas (1916) and Jahn (1927). The town of Siquisique, in the north of Lara, is the centre of the area where the last Jirajara data were collected. The last Ayam´an speakers were found in 1910 in San Miguel de los Ayamanes, a small village near Aguada Grande, also in the north of Lara. The last Gay´on speakers lived near Bobare, north of Barquisimeto, but a larger community of Spanish-speaking Gay´on, el Cerrito, was located near Quibor, south of that city, at the beginning of the twentieth century. Jahn (1927) contains word lists of the three languages. Constenla Uma˜na (1991) presents some of the typological characteristics of the Jirajaran languages. Unlike Timote–Cuica, the Jirajaran languages use case suffixes or postpositions, as in (190) from Jirajara.

(190) an-g¨ui fru-ye 1S-go Siquisique-AL ‘I go to Siquisique.’ (Oramas, in Constenla Uma˜na 1991: 58)

The interpretation of an-asafirst-person marker is tentative. Other instances of first-person subject and possessor contain a prefix a-, e.g. a-papuˇs´an ‘my arm’ (Jahn 1927: 380). If the interpretation of an-asafirst-person marker is correct, it would be homophonous with the first-person pronoun in Cuica. The free pronouns for first and second person are oh and moh, respectively (Jahn 1927: 385). According to Constenla Uma˜na’s observations, the word order is VO in transitive clauses and SV in intransitive clauses, which seems to indicate a general order SVO. Genitives and numerals precede a head noun, whereas adjectives follow it. In genitive constructions the head noun receives a possessive prefix, as in (191) from Ayam´an. 130 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(191) spaˇˇ si´uye-m´un bow 3P-string ‘bow-string’ (Jahn 192: 382)

Typologically, the Jirajaran languages seem to be closest to the Chibchan languages. However, the data are far too limited to say anything substantial about their genetic and typological characteristics.66 Some lexical similarities with Timote–Cuica can be noted, e.g. Ayaman s´ıp,Timote ti-s´ep ‘firewood’; Ayam´an -k´ıng(e),Timote k´eun ‘to sleep’; Ayam´an -nam´˜ ı ‘to eat’, Timote nam ‘to eat (meat)’.

2.15 P´aez (Nasa Yuwe) Here we will use the imposed name P´aez for the ethnic group (the alternative would be Nasa), and the native name Nasa Yuwe for the language. While the first efforts to write a catechism in Nasa Yuwe date from 1630, the first major vocabulary collected for the language dates from the middle of the eighteenth century (cf. Uricoechea 1871). The autodenomination Nasa Yuwe (‘people mouth’) for the language follows a familiar pattern (compare runa simi for Quechua; cf. chapter 3); while originally the word nasa may have meant ‘animate being’ it now refers to ‘P´aez Indian’ (Nieves Oviedo 1991a: 107). While many sources give a figure of 38,000 P´aez, Nieves Oviedo (1991a: 108) cites a figure from 1989 of 94,670 members of the group, and Pach´on (1987) cites a figure of 80,000. Pach´on indicates that the P´aez population is under strong pressure both from exceptionally high infant mortality and from military conflicts. Despite strong pressure from the colonial period onwards to move into organised villages, the P´aez have always preferred to live dispersed among the areas of cultivation. They occupy an ecologically very diverse territory, ranging in altitude from 500 to 3,000 metres. There are a number of Nasa Yuwe dialects, which are described separately in Nieves Oviedo (1991e). Most of these are very similar, but the Paniquit´a dialect is sufficiently different that some authors have classified it as a separate language. The Swadesh list of basic vocabulary included in Nieves Oviedo (1991e) shows, however, that a large majority of the core lexical items of the Paniquit´a dialect are sufficiently similar to those of the other dialects (particularly, it seems, to those of the Torib´ıo variety, but this needs to be studied more systematically) to classify Paniquit´aasaslightly divergent dialect of Nasa Yuwe. From the phoneme inventories presented in Nieves Oviedo (1991b, c, d) it appears that the Paniquit´a dialect together with the Caldono dialect has preserved the full range of Nasa Yuwe phonemes, unlike the Munchique and Torib´ıo dialects, so that it may be a conservative variety.

66 Jahn (1927: 274) and Acosta Saignes (1953) mention a possible connection between Jirajaran and the Betoi language family, formerly spoken in the Colombian lowlands, east of the Andes. One of the Betoi subgroups is called Jirara and the (probably mistaken) identification may be based on a confusion of the two names. 2.15 P´aez (Nasa Yuwe) 131

Table 2.14 Caldono P´aez obstruents (following Nieves Oviedo 1991c)

Labial stop Alveolar stop Alveolar affricate Velar stop

Plain p t c k Aspirated ph th ch kh Palatalised py ty cy ky Palatalised aspirated pyh tyh cyh kyh ŋ Prenasalised mb nd ndz g ŋ Prenasalised palatalised mbyndyndzy gy

The colonial period was characterised by fierce armed resistance against Spanish colonisation, but in the eighteenth century Catholic missionaries paved the way for permanent submission of the P´aez to Spanish domination. From 1910 to 1920 there were rebellions involving both the P´aez and the Guambiano. Since the nineteenth century the P´aez have started to learn Spanish, and now many are fully bilingual, particularly in the Caldono region (Nieves Oviedo 1991e: 1). In Pach´on (1987) it is claimed that 74 per cent of the around 80,000 P´aez are bilingual in Nasa Yuwe and Spanish, and 26 per cent are monolingual Nasa Yuwe speakers. However, the native language is under strong political and demographic pressure. At the same time it is very much alive and is supported by strong native organisations such as the CRIC (Consejo Regional Ind´ıgena del Cauca), founded in 1972. The future of Nasa Yuwe is linked to the currently highly uncertain future of rural Colombia. The Swadesh list (cf. Nieves Oviedo 1991e) shows some Spanish borrowings, such as rupa ‘cloth’ (< ropa) and ndeka ‘grease’ (< manteca). There are also some Quechua borrowings, such as alku ‘dog’ (< Ecuadorian Quechua alyku), ataly ‘chicken’ (see section 4.15), and possibly misy ‘cat (< Ecuadorian Quechua misi, ultimately from Spanish miche), as well as tata ‘father’ and mama ‘mother’, which alternate with Nasa Yuwe terms. The phoneme system of Nasa Yuwe is characterised by a highly regular but extensive series of consonants and vowels (Nieves Oviedo 1991c: 131). In the occlusive consonants there are labials, alveolar stops, alveolar affricates and velars, which can be [± aspirated], [± palatalised] and [± prenasalised] (table 2.14). Labiovelars [kw] and other labialised consonants occur but are not usually counted as phonemes in the inventories. The feature of palatalisation also plays a role in the continuants (table 2.15). The vowel system likewise is complex but highly regular. It contains a four vowel series, which can be plain, nasal, long, glottalised and aspirated (table 2.16). There is dialect variation in the distribution of these consonantal and vocalic features, e.g. ic(h) ‘nose’ in Munchique–Tigres is pronounced as ˜ c(h) in Torib´ıo and in Caldono. Nasa Yuwe syllable structure is relatively simple: two prevocalic consonants are al- lowed, followed by a vowel and one or two (only the Torib´ıo variety) consonants (Jung 132 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.15 Caldono P´aez continuants (following Nieves Oviedo 1991c)

Labial Alveolar Glottal

Plain fricatives s h Palatalised fricatives: voiceless ϕy sy hy Palatalised fricative: voiced βy Nasals m n Palatalised nasal ny Lateral l Palatalised lateral ly Glides w y

Table 2.16 Caldono P´aez vowels (following Nieves Oviedo 1991b)

Oral Nasal High Mid High High Mid High front front Low back front front Low back

Plain i e a u ˜ı˜e˜a˜u Long i: e: a: u: ˜ı:e: ˜ a: ˜ u: ˜ Glottalised iʔ eʔ aʔ uʔ ˜ıʔ e˜ʔ a˜ʔ u˜ʔ Aspirated ih eh ah uh ˜ıh e˜h a˜h u˜h

1989: 37; Nieves Oviedo 1991c; Yule Yatacu´e 1991b). However, even in the Torib´ıo variety, single morphemes can only end in one consonant. Biconsonantal clusters result from the addition of the first-person suffix -th or the third-person suffix -k (Nieves Oviedo 1991c: 129):

(192) a. ikh-th ‘I killed it.’ VCC theŋ g-th ‘I watched it.’ CVCC twak-th ‘I cut it.’ CCVCC b. amb-k ‘He threw it.’ VCC tund-k ‘He tied it.’ CVCC

In other varieties than Torib´ıo an epenthetic vowel -u is placed after the biconsonantal sequence: amb-ku ‘he threw it’ and pand-thu ‘I swept’. Many roots are monosyllabic, such as e: ‘blood’ and kpiʔsy ‘thunder’, but bi- and trisyllabic roots such as cmehme ‘butterfly’ and kwenesa ‘lightning’ occur as well. Rojas Curieux (1991a: 20) also gives examples of quadrisyllabic roots, but it needs to be seen whether these are not compound forms. Stress may be contrastive, but is not systemati- cally indicated in the sources. 2.15 P´aez (Nasa Yuwe) 133

There are a number of general phonological realisation processes: (a) in word-final position stops are aspirated (neutralising the opposition between plain and aspirated stops in that position); (b) in word-initial position prenasalisation is weakened or disappears altogether; (c) there is free variation between [u] and [o]. In addition, in specific dialects we find all kinds of phonological variation, the most interesting of which concerns depalatalisation before i in Torib´ıo. Bilabial palatal fricatives are optionally labialised in this variety before i:

(193) ϕyic >ϕic ∼ ϕwic ‘guinea-pig’

From Yule Yatacu´e’s (1991a) and Nieves Oviedo’s (1991a) account a clear picture of verbal and nominal morphology arises. It can be deduced that there are a few prefixes (marking causative and reflexive), a set of verbal vowel suffixes marking aspect, and a set of enclitic tense, mood, negation, person and number markers:

(194) ah-yaʔp-me-ku-th cook-IC-NE-RM-1S.SG.DV ‘I was not going to cook.’ (Yule Yatacu´e 1991a: 174) (195) k-deh-e-k CA-sleep-IA-3S.SG.EV.DV ‘He made him sleep.’ (Yule Yatacu´e 1991a: 186) (196) k-mem-u-th CA-sing-IA-1S.SG.DV ‘I made him sing.’ (Yule Yatacu´e 1991a: 187)

In addition, there is a proclitic preverb marking joint action. When this preverb occurs it carries the tense and person marking:

(197) ih-∅-k ndeh do.with-AO-3S.SG.EV.DV sleep ‘He slept together (with X).’ (Yule Yatacu´e 1991a: 186) (198) ih-ku-th k-mem-u do.with-RM-1S.SG.DV CA-sing-IA ‘I made him sing together (with X).’ (Yule Yatacu´e 1991a: 187)

Jung remarks that in addition to verbal negation there is nominal negation, marked with yuhpa:

(199) βyu βya-c-me: yuhpa money appear-PR-NE not ‘There really is no money.’ (Jung 1989: 305) 134 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Rojas Curieux provides some intriguing examples in which person markers occur on the object noun rather than on the verb:

(200) thuw-aʔs uy-∅-thaʔw hedgehog-AC.SG see-AO-1S.PL.DV ‘We saw the hedgehog.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 35) (201) thuw-cya-ʔs-thaʔwuy hedgehog-PL.S-AC.SG-1S.PL.DV see ‘We saw the hedgehog.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 35)

The relatively free clitic character of the person markers in Nasa Yuwe is confirmed by Nieves Oviedo’s (1991a: 129–33) analysis of nominal predication. She shows that the above contrast between (200) and (201) should be analysed in terms of focus, on the basis of the following examples:

(202) misy-aʔ karlos-aʔswaʔky-ku-k cat-TO Carlos-AC.SG bite-RM-3S.SG.EV.DV ‘The cat bit Carlos.’ (Nieves Oviedo 1991a: 129) (203) misy-ku-k karlos-aʔswaʔky cat-RM-3S.SG.EV.DV Carlos-AC.SG bite ‘It was the cat that bit Carlos.’ (Nieves Oviedo 1991a: 129) (204) misy-aʔ karlos-ku-k waʔky cat-TO Carlos-RM-3S.SG.EV.DV bite ‘It was Carlos that the cat bit.’ (Nieves Oviedo 1991a: 129)

When there is no particular focus on any of the participants in the sentence, the tense, person and mood markers are attached to the verb. Otherwise, however, they are attached to the focused constituent. In one of Nieves Oviedo’s analyses (1991a: 132–3), the focused constituent constitutes the true predicate of the sentence in all cases. Person marking is closely linked both to a gender distinction (for the first and second persons), the active/stative distinction (for the third person) and to (for all persons). Rojas Curieux (1991a) gives the following minimal pair for the active/stative distinction:

(205) wala-∅-aʔ be.tall-AO-3S.SG.ST.DV ‘He is tall.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 40) (206) wala-∅-k be.tall-AO-3S.SG.EV.DV ‘He grew.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 40) 2.15 P´aez (Nasa Yuwe) 135

Table 2.17 Person markers in Nasa Yuwe (based on Rojas Curieux 1991a, b; Nieves Oviedo 1991a; Jung 2000)

Direct Inferential Interrogative/ Pronoun knowledge knowledge no knowledge

1 sing. masc. andy -th(u) -nha -tkaʔ 1 sing. fem. u˜ ʔkwe-th(u) -nha -tkaʔ 2 sing. masc. indy -ŋg(u) -ŋga -ŋgaʔ 2 sing. fem. iʔkwe-iʔkwe-kwe-kweʔ 3 sing. stative tya-aʔ (∼ -haʔ) -na -naʔ 3 sing. active tya -k(u) -ka -kaʔ 1 plur. kweʔsy -thaʔw -nhaʔw -tkhaʔw 2 plur. iʔkwesy -iʔkwe-kwe-kweʔ 3 plur. stative tyaweʔsy -taʔ -tyna -tynaʔ 3 plur. active tyaweʔsy -ty(i) -tyna -tynaʔ

Depending on the stativity of the predicate, -aʔ or -k(u) is chosen. Most verbs will take one of the two markers, while there is a subset of predicates like wala- ‘be tall/grow’ that can take either. Jung (1989) shows that with nominal predicates, the use of a copula marks a possibly temporary state:

(207) ndyiʔh-aʔ wala kandzy-aʔ road-TO very bad-3S.SG.ST.DV ‘The road is very bad.’ (Jung 1989: 75) (208) ndyiʔh-aʔ wala kandzy us-a˜ ʔ road-TO very bad be-3S.SG.ST.DV ‘The road is very bad at the moment.’ (Jung 1989: 75)

Table 2.17 contains the full array of the person markers. The category ‘Inferential knowledge’ corresponds to knowledge that the speaker has no direct access to, to supposed or inferred events, while the category ‘Interrogative/no knowledge’ corresponds to knowledge that the speaker has to discover, most often by asking a question. In the paradigm in table 2.17 the vowel u generally corresponds with ‘Direct knowledge’, the vowel a with ‘Inferential knowledge’, and the vowel aʔ with ‘Interrogative/no knowledge’. Further analysis will have to reveal whether or not the exceptions to this imply that we can separate the categories of person and epistemic morphosyntactically. (The short forms in table 2.17 are used after a vowel, -haʔ after a glottalised vowel. Note that the endings corresponding to second person feminine and plural are identical.) 136 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Turning briefly to word order, Rojas Curieux (1991a) notes that all determiners precede the noun except the adjective. Personal pronouns preceding the noun indicate pronominal possession. While adjectives follow the noun, qualifying adverbs tend to precede the verb.

(209) tyaandy heʔndz alku khuc˜ y that I two dog black ‘those two black dogs of mine’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 25)

Often there is an SOV order, in which the object is marked -(a)ʔs ‘singular object’ or -tyi ‘plural object’. Ordinarily the subject is not marked, although it can be marked comitative and topic, in examples such as the following:

(210) nyakh-the˜h-yakh-aʔ tata-ʔs ϕyity-∅-thaʔw brother-older-C-TO father-AC.SG wake.up-AO-1S.PL.DV ‘My brother and I woke my father up.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 26)

Nonetheless, as Rojas Curieux (1991a: 27) notes, clausal order is rather free and the object can follow the verb as well. The object marker can be attached both to direct objects and to indirect objects, as well as to the causee in causative constructions, as shown by the following contrast:

(211) nasa yuwe-aʔs piya-naus-t ˜ hu nasa yuwe-AC.SG learn-N be-1S.SG.DV ‘I am learning Nasa Yuwe.’ (Jung 1989: 74) (212) hwan-aʔ u˜ʔkwe-ʔs nasa yuwe-ʔs ka:-piya-ʔh-naus-a ˜ ʔ Juan-TO I.FE-AC.SG nasa yuwe-AC.SG CA-learn-T-AG be-3S.SG.ST.DV ‘Juan is teaching me Nasa Yuwe.’ (Jung 1989: 74)

In addition to the comitative case and object markers, there are a number of other case markers as well, mostly relating to a complex locative system (Jung 1989: 188–95):

(213) -h˜ı: ‘on behalf of’, ‘for (benefactive)’ -hu ‘away from’ -ka ‘upward to’ -khe ‘downward to’ -na ‘towards’ -su ‘through’, ‘among’ -te ‘neutral’,‘towards’ -uy ‘across’, ‘in front of’ 2.15 P´aez (Nasa Yuwe) 137

There is a set of question words morphologically related to indefinite and negative universal quantifiers (Jung 1989: 306):

(214) bakacy bakacy-pa bakacyyuhpa ‘when/ever/never’ k˜ıh k˜ıh-pa k˜ıh yuhpa ‘what/something/nothing’ kim kim-pa kim yuhpa ‘who/someone/no one’ ma: ma:-pa ma: yuhpa ‘which/anyone/no one’ m-te: m-te:-pa m-te: yuhpa ‘where/somewhere/nowhere’

The existence of an indefinite marker -pa suggests that the nominal negator yuhpa is itself morphologically complex. Notice that m-te: is also morphologically complex, containing the locative marker -te:. Through reduplication of the question word the referent may be extended: k˜ h=k˜ h -pa ‘many things’, m-te:=m-te:-pa ‘everywhere’. Subordination is achieved primarily through verb nominalisation. In embedded clauses the verb is in final position and no topic is allowed (Jung 1989: 238). Nom- inalised clauses can occur in the same main clause positions as noun phrases. Infinitive complements are marked with -yaʔ and generally precede the main verb, which is some- times best analysed as a modal or aspectual auxiliary. Notice there is no case marking in these complements:

(215) yat-te ka:-piya-ʔh-yaʔ takh-e-ʔ-ty house-L CA-learn-T-IF begin-IA-CU-3S.PL.EV.DV ‘They begin teaching them in the house.’ (Jung 1989: 242)

In addition to a nominaliser for expected events -waʔh, and a participle marker for realised events -nyi, there is an unspecified nominaliser -sa that has the remarkable feature that it can be both subject- (216) and object-oriented (217). With nouns (218), it indicates the person with a certain property:

(216) ka:-piya-ʔh-sa CA-learn-T-N ‘teacher’ (Jung 1989: 247) (217) ka:-piya-ʔh-nyi-sa CA-learn-T-SN-N ‘what has been taught’ (Jung 1989: 247) (218) nasa-sa P´aez-N ‘someone who is a P´aez’ (Jung 1989: 247)

This marker can be used to form relative clauses. 138 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(219) ka:-piya-ʔh-yaʔ paʔh-sa-ty tya:˜ ka:-piya-ʔh-nyi-ty hypaʔka-c-me:-tkhaʔw CA-learn-T-IF come-N-AC.PL that CA-learn-T-SN-AC.PL accept-PR-NE-1S.PL.IR ‘We don’t accept the teachings of those who have come to teach us.’67 (Jung 1989: 248)

For samples of analysed and translated text in P´aez see Nieves Oviedo (1991e) and Jung (2000).

2.16 Andaqu´ı and the languages of the Upper Magdalena valley From a historical point of view, the Andaqu´ı people are famous for the merciless guerrilla warwhich they were able to sustain against the Spanish colonial administration for almost 250 years. In literature they have often been presented as identical to the inhabitants of the Upper Magdalena valley region at the time of the conquest (see, for instance, Rivet 1924). In that perspective, they would have superseded the people responsible for building the sculptures and monuments at the archaeological site of San Agust´ın in the proximity of the Magdalena headwaters. A careful study of the rich historical documentation relating to the Upper Magdalena region carried out by the historian (1953) has brought to light a more complex reality.68 At the time of the conquest the Upper Magdalena region was inhabited by several ethnic groups with a more or less egalitarian social structure. Best known among these groups were the Timan´a and the Yalc´on.69 In times of danger they would unite with neighbouring peoples, such as the Guanaca and the P´aez. The Spaniards, who were initially well received, experienced this during the great uprising which led to the death of the conquistadores A˜nasco and Ampudia in 1543. Unfortunately, the extraordinary bravery of the Upper Magdalena Indians was matched by poor military strategy (massive noisy attacks in closed formation, always during daytime; inefficient weapons), so that the Spaniards soon subjugated them. They founded the towns of Timan´a and La Plata and divided the Indians according to the encomienda system.70 Forced to defend them- selves against aggressive neighbours, such as the Pijao, the impoverished encomenderos

67 By using an interrogative form in a non-interrogative context an individual speaker can take distance from a habit characteristic for the group to which he or she belongs (Jung 1989: 123–4). 68 An important part of Friede’s conclusions are based on the visita (‘inspection’) of Timan´a, conducted by the Spanish colonial authorities in 1628. 69 It is not likely that these groups were direct descendants of the sculptor people of San Agust´ın. Most authors emphasise the differences in religion, burial habits and social organisation. 70 Encomienda:trust estate granted to colonists by the Spanish kings. 2.16 Andaqu´ı and the Upper Magdalena valley 139 repeatedly moved and relocated the local Indians which they were supposed to protect, ruthlessly exploiting their work force and using them as scouts or porters. This process led to the virtual disappearance of the local tribes during the second half of the seventeenth century. In their misery and despair, many Indians fled the Upper Magdalena region and found a hiding place on the eastern Andean slopes and in the adjacent Amazonian lowlands. The attacks by the Andaqu´ı Indians began at the beginning of the seventeenth century. (One of their first exploits was the destruction of the town of Simancas on the Upper Caquet´a about 1600.) The habitat of the Andaqu´ı Indians included a huge jungle area, bordered by the Caquet´ariver in the south and west, its tributary the Cagu´an in the east, and the Upper Magdalena highlands in the north. During the seventeenth century they frequently raided the Upper Magdalena region with its dwindling population, in particular, the area of San Agust´ın and the valley of the Suaza, an eastern tributary of the Magdalena. Soon the entire population of the Suaza river valley had to be removed, as it was too exposed to the attacks of the Andaqu´ı. In the eighteenth century the Andaqu´ı turned their attention to the missionary settlements on the Caquet´ariver. Many of them were destroyed and abandoned. During the nineteenth century the Andaqu´ı slipped into oblivion. Today, only some place names, such as Bel´en de los Andaqu´ıes on the Pescado river (near Florencia), remind us of their existence. There are no known speakers of the language left. The identity of the Andaqu´ı Indians is problematic. They may have had an Amazonian origin, a conclusion which is favoured by their extraordinary adaptation to the jungle habitat. In contrast to the sixteenth century-Upper Magdalena Indians, their fighting techniques were excellent. Perfect knowledge of the tropical jungle environment, am- bushes, night attacks, efficient weapons and the use of intelligence guaranteed their success as guerrilla fighters. Military expeditions that were launched against them in- variably turned into disaster. Most striking of the Andaqu´ıistheir total rejection, if not contempt, of everything Spanish, including the religion and its representatives, and their hatred of Indians willing to live under Spanish rule. Their doggedness suggests that they might have been descendants of refugees from the highlands, who would have had good reasons for being so intransigent. Even during the worst periods of the Andaqu´ıwar, they were probably not numerous (possibly less than a thousand). The original languages of the Upper Magdalena region have long become extinct. Through an analysis of the information on language use supplied by the colonial docu- ments, Friede (1953) concludes that in 1628, apart from Quechua and Spanish, at least two Amazonian and four local languages were spoken in the Upper Magdalena area. One local language originated from the valley of the La Plata river, one from the area of Pitalito and San Agust´ın (the upper reaches of the Magdalena), one from the area of Timan´a and one from the upper Suaza valley. All that is known of these languages are 140 2 The Chibcha Sphere family names and place names mentioned in the colonial documents relating to the area (Friede 1952). For the Andaqu´ı language there are two sources. An anonymous list of some twenty pages of words and expressions, sent to Madrid by Mutis, was published in the Catalogue of the Royal Library in 1928. A second word list was collected by the priest Manuel Mar´ıa Albis in 1854 (Albis 1860–1). Given the size and the nature of the material, a systematic study of it should make it possible to reconstruct some aspects of the language. An article by Rivet (1924) is based on Albis’s list and is mainly geared at demonstrating a Chibchan affiliation for Andaqu´ı. This is not convincing, but if the alleged P´aez cognates alone are considered, some interesting parallels emerge. Possible shared cultural terms are the words for ‘cotton’ (Andaqu´ı guahuahi;P´aez wewe; cf. Rivet 1924) and ‘’ (Andaqu´ı kag´a;P´aez kaʔka ∼ kaʔga ‘potato’; cf. Jung 2000: 142). Among body-part terms we may mention the words for ‘ear’ (Andaqu´ı chunguah´e;P´aez thuwa˜ ; cf. Rivet 1924) and ‘tongue’ (Andaqu´ı shona´e;P´aez thune; cf. Rivet 1924). Compare also the verbs ‘to sit’ (Andaqu´ı caya-, coaya-; P´aez katy, kacy ‘to sit’) and ‘to sleep’ (Andaqu´ı bonda-, da-; P´aez ndeh). The general aspect of Andaqu´ıwords is very different from what is found in P´aez. Long words, mainly consisting of open syllables, predominate. The only frequent syllable-final consonant is -n. The Madrid word list includes a few unusual symbol combinations, the value of which can only be guessed. Most conspicuous is fsrr, e.g. in fsrragua ‘a type of liana’ and fsrrixa ‘agave fibre’. Morphologically, the language combines prefixation and suffixation. Person of subject can be indicated by means of prefixes, e.g. ka- ‘second person’ as in:

(220) ninga ca-mimi I 2S-love ‘Do you like me?’ (Anonymous 1928: 181)

Modal categories, nominalisation and possibly some parts of personal reference are indicated by means of suffixes. The second-person imperative marker is -z´a.

(221) fsrrajono-z´a lie.down-2S.IM ‘Lie down!’ (Anonymous 1928: 185)

Nouns and adjectives frequently contain a lexical suffix with an unidentified function, e.g. -hi or -(h)´e (cf. guahua-hi, chungua-h´e and shona-´e above). Case is indicated by means of suffixes, as in cogo ‘house’, cogo-ra ‘(go) home’. The numeral system is weakly developed. This would speak in favour of an Amazo- nian origin considering that Andean languages generally have fully developed decimal systems. Friede, cited by Taylor (1999), attributes a mixed origin to the Andaqu´ı, which 2.17 Barbacoan languages 141 he assumes to have consisted of elements of Cof´an, Pijao and Tucanoan peoples. The lex- ical similarities with P´aez suggest that the original languages of the Upper Magdalena, which were neighbours of P´aez and may have been related to it, should not be rejected as a possible component.

2.17 Barbacoan languages The Barbacoan languages occupy a relatively large, fragmented area in southern Colom- bia and the Ecuadorian coastal provinces. There are five living languages, Cayapa, Colorado, Cuaiquer, Guambiano and Totor´o, although the last one is moribund. The three first languages are now more often referred to by their native names, which are Chapalaachi, Tsafiki and Awa Pit, respectively. Chapalaachi is spoken by some 4,000 Chachi or Cayapa Indians in the province of Esmeraldas (Ecuador), near the Cayapas river (Vittadello 1988). The Tsachila or Colorado,who speak Tsafiki, number about 2,000. They inhabit the area of Santo Domingo de los Colorados and Quevedo in the western part of the Pichincha province (Ecuador). The Cuaiquer or Awa are established in the department of Nari˜no (Colombia) on the upper Telemb´ıriver and in the area of Altaquer and Ricaurte, between T´uquerres and Tumaco. Several decades ago a substantial number of Awa migrated to Ecuador, where they mainly reside in the western part of the province of Carchi. In Colombia the number of Awa has been calculated at approximately 13,000 (Arango and S´anchez 1998), in Ecuador at 1,600. The Awa are known for practising secrecy with respect to their language and cultural identity. Curnow and Liddicoat (1998) estimate that only a limited percentage of the Awa continue to speak the language, but reliable figures are not obtainable. Guambiano and Totor´o are spoken in an area to the east and northeast of Popay´an in the department of Cauca (Colombia). Together with the extinct Coconuco they are also known as the Coconucan languages. There are 20,000 Guambiano (Arango and S´anchez 1998), who live mainly in the resguardos of Guamb´ıa and Quisg´o, near the market town of Silvia. The language is well preserved in Guamb´ıa, but less so in Quisg´o. Due to the growth of their population, many Guambiano now live in areas outside their original resguardos, also in the neighbouring department of Huila. Totor´oisaresguardo to the south of Silvia, on the Popay´an–La Plata road. Only four out of 3,600 indigenous Totore˜nos are said to still know the language, but there has been a strong wish to recover the original cultural identity (Pab´on Triana 1995a). Guambiano, Totor´o and Coconuco (originally spoken in Coconuco and Purac´e) are very closely related, and are probably better treated as dialects of one language. The affinity of the Coconucan languages and the other Barbacoan languages was first recognised by Brinton (1891). This observation soon became obscured when Beuchat and Rivet (1910b) reclassified the Coconucan languages with neighbouring P´aez and 142 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Paniquita, treating them together as a subgroup of Chibchan. The remaining Barba- coan languages, in turn, were classified as yet another subgroup of Chibchan. Curnow (1998) sees as one of the possible causes of this confusion the circulation of a word list of the so-called ‘Moguex’ language, which in reality represented a mix of P´aez and Guambiano expressions. The resulting confusion affected all subsequent classificatory efforts, including those of Loukotka (1968), Greenberg (1987) and Kaufman (1990), until Constenla Uma˜na (1991) drew attention to the obvious lexical similarities that link Guambiano with the other Barbacoan languages. In earlier work Constenla Uma˜na (1981) had already rejected the Chibchan connection and the alleged close relationship between Coconucan and P´aez. Curnow and Liddicoat (1998) have elaborated lexical and phonological, as well as some morphosyntactic correspondences between the Barbacoan languages, substantiating Constenla’s findings in a convincing way. Constenla Uma˜na (1991), as well as Curnow and Liddicoat (1998), propose a division of the Barbacoan languages in two subfamilies: a northern group comprising Awa Pit and the Coconucan languages, and a southern group consisting of Chapalaachi and Tsafiki. The languages of the southern group are very closely related. The northern group is somewhat less close. One of the phonological differences between the two groups is that the northern group has retained word-final obstruents, where the southern group has lost them. The confusion surrounding the linguistic affinity of the Guambiano has occasionally lead to treating them as a sort of historical ‘mystery’ people (cf. V´asquez de Ru´ız 1988: 31–6). However, in view of their linguistic connections to the west and southwest, it is likely that they may have been a remnant of the people, represented by the Pubenza federation, which dominated the Popay´an area at the arrival of the Spaniards. The neigh- bouring Guanaca people of the colonial period have also been suggested as possible relatives of the Guambiano. Further south, the Pasto Indians, still a numerous group in the area between the town of Pasto and the Ecuadorian border, almost certainly spoke a Barbacoan language, although they are Spanish speakers now. The Cara language spoken in the northern Ecuadorian Andes before the introduction of Quechua may also have belonged to the Barbacoan family, but the evidence so far is not conclusive (see chapter 3, section 3.9.1). In terms of overall description of the Barbacoan languages much remains to be done. ForAwa Pit there is a reference grammar in dissertation form (Curnow 1997) and descriptive studies by Calvache Due˜nas (1989, 2000) and Obando Ord´o˜nez (1992). Several studies of a limited scope discuss aspects of Guambiano phonology and grammar (Branks and Branks 1973; Long 1985; V´asquez de Ru´ız 1988, 1994, 2000; Trivi˜no Garz´on 1994). Studies on Tsafiki (Moore 1966) and Chapalaachi (Lindskoog and Brend 1962; Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964; Vittadello 1988) contain first approaches to the grammar of these languages. Moore (1962) and Curnow and Liddicoat (1998) address the issue of phonological and lexical reconstruction. 2.17 Barbacoan languages 143

Table 2.18 Guambiano consonant inventory (based on V´asquez de Ru´ız 2000)

Labial Alveolar Palatal Retroflex Velar

Stops p t k Affricates ccˇ ˇ c. Fricatives ssˇ ˇ s. Nasals m n ny Laterals l ly Vibrant r Glides w y

A characteristic of the Barbacoan vowel systems is the lack of a contrast between o and u; such a contrast is only found in Tsafiki. Guambiano distinguishes five vowels: a, e, i, , u. The  is described as either a high (Branks and Branks; Long), or a mid (V´asquez de Ru´ız) central vowel. Tsafiki distinguishes five vowels, a, e, i, o, u, and Chapalaachi four: a, e, i, u. Furthermore, Chapalaachi has a length contrast. Nasalised vowels occur phonetically in Tsafiki, but they may reflect the presence of a syllable-final nasal, rather than an inherent feature of the vowel itself. The inventory of vowels in Awa Pit is controversial. Calvache Due˜nas (2000) dis- tinguishes five vowels, a, e, i, , u, with a functionally marginal nasality contrast and a non-distinctive voice contrast. Curnow (1997: 38–45) distinguishes four voiced vowel phonemes, a, i, , u,while interpreting the sound [e] as an allophone of a, i and .He also distinguishes three voiceless high vowels, i, , u, and demonstrates the contrastive ˚ ˚ ˚ character of the voice opposition by means of minimal pairs such as tu ‘shoulder bag’ ˚ and tu ‘to be in a place’. Vocalic nasality, restricted to vowels and diphthongs occurring in word-final position, is attributed to the presence of a velar nasal phoneme ŋ. Curnow, furthermore, explains that Awa Pit has sequences of like vowels (e.g. in paas ‘two’, pii ‘river’), and that other vowel sequences do not necessarily merge into a diphthong, for instance, in au [a(γ )u] ‘we’ (but saw [tsaw] ‘field’). The consonant inventories of Guambiano, Awa Pit, Tsafiki and Chapalaachi are represented in the tables 2.18–2.21. Long (1985) distinguishes three additional consonant phonemes in Guambiano: kw, zˇ, and ʔ. The sound combination kw is interpreted as kuV by V´asquez de Ru´ız; zˇ may be an allophone of cˇ. The case of ʔ seems to reflect a real difference of observation, however. It occurs in interrogative expressions such as mak´uʔ ‘do you eat?’. V´asquez de Ru´ız (1988) has final zero in these cases. Guambiano stops and affricates can be subject to voicing and fricativisation depending on their position in a word form. 144 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.19 Awa Pit (Cuaiquer) consonant inventory (based on Curnow 1997)

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar

Stops p t k Voiceless fricatives ss ˇ Voiced fricatives zz ˇ Lateral fricative l Lateral approximant l Nasals m n ŋ Glides w y

Table 2.20 Tsafiki (Colorado) consonant inventory (based on Moore 1966)

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal

Voiceless stops p t k ʔ Voiced stops b d Affricates c Fricatives ϕ sh Nasals m n Laterals l Vibrants r Glides w y

As we have seen, the velar nasal in the Awa Pit consonant inventory (Curnow 1997) compensates for the absence of a nasality contrast in the vowels. A palatal nasal [ny] occurs but is analysed as a nasal+glide sequence ny. The phoneme l varies between [h], [x] and [l ], either within or between dialects. Several dialects only have [h] ∼ [x], instead of the lateral fricative, hence the sounds in question have also been categorised as a velar or glottal fricative (e.g. in Calvache Due˜nas 2000). Awa Pit has affricates ([ts], [ˇc]), which can be analysed as allophones of s and sˇ (Curnow 1997: 29–32). When found intervocalically, they are to be interpreted as ambisyllabic sequences (ts, tˇs); Calvache Due˜nas prefers to treat them as separate phonemes. Geminated stops also occur in Awa Pit. Stops that are not geminated are subject to a set of allophonic rules, such as voicing between a voiced consonant and a voiced vowel, and voicing combined with fricativisation between vowels. Word-internal intervocalic /t/isrealised as [r]. In Tsafiki the phonemes c and s have palatal allophones [ˇc] and [ˇs] before high vowels. The vibrant r is sometimes pronounced [dr] in word-initial position. The consonants b and d are preglottalised in word-internal position. Frequently, voiceless consonants are 2.17 Barbacoan languages 145

Table 2.21 Chapalaachi (Cayapa) consonant inventory (based on Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964; Vittadello 1988)

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal

Voiceless stops p t ty k ʔ Voiced stops b d dy g Affricates cc ˇ Voiceless fricatives f ssx ˇ Voiced fricative β Nasals m n ny ŋ Laterals l ly Glides w y

preaspirated in word-internal position. If the phonological context should not automat- ically account for all the cases of preaspiration, it may be necessary to add additional series of preaspirated stops and fricatives to the inventory. The status of the glottal stop is uncertain. A characteristic feature of Tsafiki is that stress is phonemic, e.g. in mer´ano ‘to hear’ and m´erano ‘to wait’ (Moore 1966: 96). From a general typological point of view, the Barbacoan languages belong to the cen- tral Andean sphere, rather than to the Chibchan domain (cf. Constenla Uma˜na 1991). The influence of Quechua in the area must have been a relatively recent phenomenon, which may go back approximately to AD 1400 (cf. chapter 3). Therefore, the Central Andean characteristics of Barbacoan may be attributed either to an earlier period of interaction or to genetic connections. Curnow and Liddicoat (1998: 387) observe the following similarities in the grammatical typology of the Barbacoan languages. All the Barbacoan languages are verb-final (SOV). Modifiers (adjectives, adverbs) precede their heads.71 The main morphological device is suffixation. Prefixes occur in Chapalaachi and in Tsafiki, but to a limited extent. The Barbacoan languages are case-marking languages of the nominative–accusative type. Nominative is zero, but accusative case is marked with a suffix (although all languages reserve this for human or definite objects). In most cases, the accusative markers have locative functions as well. Curnow and Liddicoat emphasise the lack of cognacy between the accusative markers in the Barbacoan languages, which suggests a relatively recent development. All these characteristics are reminiscent of the situation in Quechua and in Aymaran. The locative–accusative marker -ta of Awa Pit is even formally similar to the corresponding case suffix in Quechua, e.g. Awa Pit pastu-ta [pastura], Quechua pastu-ta ‘to Pasto’. The genitive case marker of Awa Pit coincides with conservative Quechua dialects in two of its allomorphs (-pa, -p), e.g. in santos-pa

71 Calvache Due˜nas (2000: 108) holds that Awa Pit has noun–adjective order. In Guambiano both orders are possible, although the adjective–noun order is the preferred one (Long 1985: 19). 146 2 The Chibcha Sphere kuˇzu ‘Santos’s pig’, a-p ‘my’, ‘mine’, ‘our(s)’ (Curnow 1997: 124–5); cf. section 3.2 on Quechua. To this list we could add the prominent position of switch-reference and the richly developed nominalisation strategies of the southern Barbacoan languages. On the other hand, it should be observed that the Barbacoan languages also share typological phenomena with the Chibchan languages. An example is the existence of declarative and interrogative markers and their intimate coalescence with verbal flection. Constructions involving auxiliary verbs and nominalisation are also well represented in Guambiano, Tsafiki and Awa Pit. A typological element that is characteristic for the Barbacoan family in particular is the way speech act participants are encoded. All the languages make a basic distinction between speaker and non-speaker. The verbal inflection reflects this distinction, rather than the usual division into first, second and third person. Number distinctions are often reserved for first person. In Guambiano verbal inflection encodes three person and number categories: speaker singular, speaker plural and non-speaker. In (222), (223) and (224) three forms of the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ are illustrated. The forms ku-r and k-er (with endings -r and -er) refer to a first person singular and plural, respectively. For second and third person only one option is available, namely k-n (with ending -n). Example (225) illustrates the use of the ending -n with a second-person subject, but with a different auxiliary verb, wa- ‘to sit’.72

(222) na-p´e empresa-yu kwaly-´ıp-ik ku-r73 I-TO factory-L work-N-AJ.SG be-SR.SG ‘I am working in the factory.’ (V´asquez de Ruiz 1988: 120) (223) na-m mis´ak k-er I-PL people be-SR.PL ‘We are Guambianos.’ (Trivi˜no Garz´on1994: 609) (224) un´y´au-wan m´a-p-ik k-n child meat-AC eat-N-AJ.SG be-NS ‘The child is eating the meat.’ (V´asquez de Ruiz 1988: 69) (225) nyi pur´akwac-´p wa-n you maize husk-N sit-NS ‘You are (sit) husking maize.’ (V´asquez de Ruiz 2000: 159)

In Tsafiki, Chapalaachi and Awa Pit the distinction between speaker and non- speaker is equally important. Furthermore, there is the additional complication that a

72 According to V´asquez de Ru´ız (1988), the pronoun nyi can also be interpreted as third person, when the subject is located at a short distance of the addressee. It refers to a close non-speaker, rather than to the addressee in particular. 73 Note that p is a voiced fricative [β] intervocalically and a voiceless fricative [ϕ]inword-final position. 2.17 Barbacoan languages 147 second-person subject has to be classified with the speaker category in an interrog- ative context. In Tsafiki the speaker suffix -yo-/-yu-isused in first-person subject declarative forms (226) and in second-person subject interrogative forms (227); second- person declarative and third person are indicated by a zero form (228). Additionally, there is a special suffix -i- for first-person subject interrogative (Dickinson 1999, 2000; Curnow MS).

(226) an´o ϕi-yo-ʔe´ banana74 eat-SR-DV ‘I ate.’ (Moore 1966: 100) (227) an´o ϕi-y´u-n75 banana eat-SR-IR ‘Did you eat?’ (Moore 1966: 100) (228) an´o ϕ´ı-wiya-∅-ʔe banana eat-almost-NS-DV ‘He almost ate.’ (Moore 1966: 100)

In Chapalaachi we find the same opposition in ruku-yu ‘I am a man’, ‘are you a man?’, ruku-de:-yu ‘we are men’, as opposed to ruku-βe ‘you are a man’, ‘he is a man’, ruku-de:-βe ‘you/they are men’ (Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964: 123). The suffix -de:- is a plural marker. Personal reference in the strict sense is not indicated morphologically in any of the Barbacoan languages. Free pronouns are used instead. In addition to the basic pronouns that refer to subject, there may be special pronouns to be used in the object role, as well as possessive pronouns. Possessive pronouns may have different shapes depending on whether they are used attributively or independently (and as predicates). In all the Barbacoan languages the pronominal system distinguishes first, second and third person, as well as number. Awa Pit has distinct pronoun inventories for subject, object/beneficiary and possessor. The suffixes that characterise the object pronouns appear to have only that function. Although the subject and object pronouns are marked for number (singular or plural), this is not he case of the possessive adjectives. A plural possessor is either indicated by means of the corresponding singular form, or by the plural nominative.

74 In Tsafiki and Chapalaachi the word for ‘banana’ (Tsafiki an´o, Chapalaachi panda) coincides with the word for ‘food’ in general. The concept ‘to eat’ without a specified object is translated as an´o ϕi- and panda fi-, respectively. Compare the use of Mandarin Chinese f`an ‘rice’ as an unspecified object in ch˘f`an ‘to eat’. 75 Note that syllable-final n in Tsafiki normally serves to indicate nasality in the preceding vowel [ϕiyu]˜´ . This observation and the notation of a glottal stop in the declarative suffix -ʔe are based on Moore (1961, 1962). 148 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.22 Awa Pit pronouns (based on Curnow 1997: 86, 94)

Nominative Accusative Possessive

1 pers. sing. na na-wa a-p 1 pers. plur. au au-mza – 2 pers. sing. nu nu-wa u-p 2 pers. plur. u u-mza – 3 pers. sing. us us-a payny a 3 pers. plur. uspa uspa-tuza –

Table 2.23 Chapalaachi pronouns (based on Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964)

Personal Adjectival Independent pronouns possessive pronouns possessive pronouns

1 sing. iin in-ˇci 1 plur. la-la la-la-ʔ la:-ˇci 2 sing. nyunyu-ʔ nyu-ˇci 2 plur. nyu-lyanyu-lya-ʔ nyu-i-ˇci 3 sing. ya ya-ʔ ya-ˇci 3 plur. ya-la ya-la-ʔ ya-i-ˇci

The following examples illustrate the use of some of these forms. The endings -w and -y refer to speaker (subject) and non-speaker, respectively.

(229) ap yal au yal 1.G house we house ‘my house’, ‘our house’ ‘our house’ (Curnow 1997: 124) (230) uspa uz-puta-y they sit-S.PL.NS-NS ‘They are sitting.’ (Curnow 1997: 185) (231) nu-ne na-wa pak-pyan-tu-y you-TO I-AC cure-know-IA-NS ‘You are curing me.’ (Calvache Due˜nas 2000: 111) (232) na-na uspa-tuza ttkyan-na-ta-w I-TO they-PL.AC cut throw-PL.O-PA-SR.S ‘I stabbed them.’ (Curnow 1997: 183)

The difference between adjectival and independent possessive pronouns is found in Chapalaachi, as shown in table 2.23. The genitive markers -ʔ and -ciˇ ,which can be 2.17 Barbacoan languages 149 recognised in the pronominal forms, are also used to indicate a genitive relation between nouns. (233) kuˇca-ʔ panda dog-G food ‘the dog’s food’ (Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964: 122) (234) kuˇca-ˇci dog-G ‘the dog’s’, ‘belonging to the dog’ (Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964: 122)

Tsafiki is exceptional in that it encodes a gender distinction in the first-person pronoun. The pronoun la ‘I’ is used by men, whereas women use ciˇ hk´e.For children’s use there is yet another form: ceˇ . Each of these elements forms its possessive counterpart by adding the genitive marker -ciˇ .For the plural (‘we’) there appears to be no distinction because Moore (1966) recorded a single form, ciˇ hke-l´a, for both men and women. Both Chapalaachi and Tsafiki have an extensive verbal morphology. They both have a rich variety of suffixes that indicate different types of verbal subordination. Many of these subordination types allow for a further distinction between subordinate verbs that have the same subject as the verb to which they are subordinate and those that do not have the same subject. Since personal reference is not normally visible in a subordinate verb, the alternation of ‘same subjects’ and ‘different subjects’ must help the listener to keep track of the role of the actors in a succession of events. The situation in Tsafiki, for instance, is reminiscent of the use of switch-reference in Ecuadorian Highland Quechua (see chapter 3). Since the latter is not typical for Quechua as a whole, the influence of a South Barbacoan substratum may be suspected. Consider the following examples from Tsafiki. (235) h´a-namin-nan ´ı kir´a-yo-ʔe come-SM.SS-AD76 snake see-SR-DV ‘While I was coming, I saw a snake.’ (Moore 1966: 102) (236) h´a-nasa-nan pin´ı kir´a-yo-ʔe come-SM.DS-AD snake see-SR-DV ‘I saw a snake, while it was coming.’ (Moore 1966: 102) (237) w´alpa ϕi-hc´ˇun k´a-yo-ʔe hen eat-F.SS catch-SR-DV ‘I caught the hen in order to eat it.’ (Moore 1966: 101) (238) an´o ϕi-hs´aware-´∅-na-ʔe food eat-F.DS cry-NS-PR-DV ‘He is crying so that someone else might eat.’ (Moore 1966: 101)

76 The element -nan [n˜a] is translated as ‘also’ (tambi´en). 150 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Tsafiki is the only Barbacoan language in which an unambiguous system of grammat- ical classifiers has been recorded. They refer to shape and are used both with numerals and with adjectives. When used with adjectives they are followed by a suffix -n (that is, vowel nasalisation). The classifier -de,which refers to long objects, illustrates the use of classifiers in (239) and (240).

(239) palu-d´ean´o two-CL banana ‘two bananas’ (Moore 1966: 99) (240) n´a-de-n an´o child-CL-AJ banana ‘small banana’ (Moore 1966: 99)

As we anticipated, Guambiano has an elaborate system of auxiliary verbs. These auxiliary verbs are inflected for person and number, whereas the (nominalised) verbs they accompany can carry different types of aspectual distinctions. Guambiano has a series of auxiliary verbs that refer to bodily positions; one of them, wa- ‘to sit’, was illustrated in example (225). Other positional auxiliaries are paˇ.sa- ‘to stand’, cu- ‘to lie’, meka- ‘to hang’ (241). These verbs can also be used as existential verbs ‘to be somewhere’ (Spanish estar), as in (242).

(241) y´e-wan yan´a-m-ik paˇs.a-n´ potato-AC sell-F-N stand-NS ‘I will sell the potatoes.’ (lit. ‘It stands to sell the potatoes.’) (Trivi˜no Garz´on 1994: 614) (242) ul-p´ek´aw-yu cu-n snake-TO grass-L lie-NS ‘The snake is in the grass.’ (Long 1985: 28)

Awa Pit, Chapalaachi and Tsafiki often use the verb stem ‘to do’ (*ki-) with nouns, adjectives and Spanish loan roots in order to create new verbs (cf. Curnow and Liddicoat 1998: 403). An example from Chapalaachi is (243).

(243) iŋbi ke-nu spittle do-IF ‘to spit’ (Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964: 80)

Among the morphological characteristics of the southern Barbacoan languages we may mention a morphological passive in Chapalaachi, the existence of an extensive set of nominalisations (comparable to Quechua) and the use of verbal prefixes. Tsafiki has the following nominalisations: agentive in -min, infinitive in -no, stative participle in -ka and instrumental in -nun. 2.18 Kams´a 151

(244) m´usika ke-n´un music make-IS.N ‘something to make music with’ (Moore 1966: 103)

Verbal prefixes have different functions. Chapalaachi has two prefixes de-, one with the meaning ‘to finish doing something’ and one with the meaning ‘plural subject’. The prefix ma(n)- ‘repetition’ has an equivalent in Tsafiki, where it is man- (compare man ‘one’).

(245) an´o man-ϕi-∅-ʔe´ food RP-eat-NS-DV ‘I ate again.’ (Moore 1966: 104)

Avery interesting prefix is Tsafiki pe-, which indicates help or joint action (246).

(246) pe-ayud´ai-de [Spanish ayudar ‘to help’] AS-help-IM.NS ‘Help!’ (Moore 1996: 104) (247) pe-h´ı-ˇcina-yo-ʔe AS-go-F-SR-DV ‘I will go with you/him.’ (Moore 1996: 104)

2.18 Kams´a The language called Kams´a (Kamnˇc. a´)orSibundoy has often been identified with the language of an ethnic group known historically by the Quechua name of Quillacinga (‘moon-nose’). For the time being, Kams´aisbest treated as a linguistic isolate, as former associations with the Chibchan family have proved unsubstantial. The Quillacinga were a highland people, settled in the area northeast of the town of Pasto. The present-day Kams´a, who according to Arango and S´anchez (1998) number approximately 4,000 people, inhabit the valley of Sibundoy between Pasto and Mocoa at the upper reaches of the . They share the area with their more numerous neighbours, the Quechua speaking Inga (cf. chapter 3), who may be (Quechuanised) descendants of the Quillacinga. The Indians of the area are known for their persistent struggle against monopolistic missionary activity during most of the twentieth century. The history of oppressive domination by the Capuchin mission among the Kams´a and the Inga is told by Bonilla (1972). The Kams´a language with its extraordinarily complex morphology has only been described to a limited extent, most of the published work available so far being phono- logical or on special topics, such as the structure of discourse (Howard 1977a, b). A text collection with a phonological introduction has been published by Mongu´ıS´anchez 152 2 The Chibcha Sphere

Table 2.24 Kams´a consonant phonemes (based on Howard 1979)

Labial Alveolar Palatal Retroflex Velar

Voiceless stops p t k Voiced stops b d [nd] g [ŋg] Voiceless affricates ccˇ ˇ c. Voiceless fricatives (ϕ)ssˇ ˇ s. x Nasals m n ny Laterals l ly Vibrant r [ˇr] Glides w y [dzˇ ]

(1981). An encouraging aspect of Kams´a studies is the active participation of members of the Kams´a community itself (Juajibioy Chindoy 1962; Juajibioy Chindoy and Wheeler 1973; Jamioy Muchavisoy 1992, 1995). Mel´endez Lozano (2000c) provides a short ty- pological sketch of the language, partly based on unpublished sources. Regrettably, we have not been able to locate a dictionary of the language. According to Howard (1979), Kams´a distinguishes six vowels (a, e, i, , o, u). The  is a high central vowel. An inventory of the consonant phonemes is represented in table 2.24. The inventory in table 2.24 calls for some observations. The special realisations of r and y (given between square brackets) occur, respectively, in word-initial position (e.g. in r´ala [ˇr´ala] ‘money’, from Spanish real) and after n (e.g. in bom´ınyi [bom´ındzˇ i] ‘eye’). The Kams´a language has been particularly receptive to borrowing from Spanish, a fact which has profoundly influenced the sound system as it is today. The sound [ϕ] (alternatively [β]) may be treated as a preconsonantal allophone of either p or b if borrowings from Spanish are not counted (e.g. in skon´uϕta [skon´uϕta ∼ skon´uβta] ‘nine’). In borrowings it replaces Spanish f (e.g. in ϕlako-x´ema ‘slim’, from Spanish flaco ‘slim’ and -xema ‘old’), a fact which justifies its status as a separate phoneme. In native words the voiced stops d and g are found after nasals (e.g. in nd´onye ‘no’, ϕceŋg´a ‘black’). They have additional fricative allophones ([ð], [γ ]) that occur in other environments, but only in loan words, e.g. the root-initial d in xa-demand´a-na77 ‘to demand’, from Spanish demandar.From the viewpoint of the native sound system, the clusters nd and ŋg may very well be treated as unit phonemes, due to their frequent occurrence in word-initial position. In some well-established loan words, such as nde´olp ‘suddenly’, from Spanish de golpe (Mongu´ıS´anchez 1981), a nasal element that was not even there originally has been introduced.

77 The frame x(a)-...-nais characteristic for infinitives in Kams´a. 2.18 Kams´a 153

Table 2.25 Kams´a personal reference markers (after Mel´endez Lozano 2000c)

1 pers. sing. c(i)-, s()-, i- 1 and 3 pers. dual bo-, b-, bn- 1 pers. plur. exclusive ϕc(i)-, ϕs()- 1 pers. plur. inclusive and 3 pers. plur. mo-, m()- 2 pers. sing. ko-, k()- 2 pers. dual .sˇo-,.s ˇ-,.s ˇn- 2 pers. plur. .sˇmo-,.s ˇm()-

A characteristic feature of the Kams´a language are its consonant clusters. Up to three consonants (rarely even four) can be found in medial and initial position, e.g. in sknen´ˇ a ŋ ‘wooden plate’, xϕcbeˇc. ana´ ‘to carry a child’, goϕsn´ˇ a ‘green’ (Howard 1979: 89). The place of the accent is contrastive. It can be either on the last or on the penultimate vowel of a word. Typologically, Kams´a differs from any other language in the area by its abundant use of prefixes. Nevertheless, prefixation is not the only morphological device of the language. Case and number with nouns, as well as several verbal categories, are indicated by means of suffixes. A set of eighteen classifiers based on shape (e.g. -b´e for round objects, -c.ˇe for oval objects, -ϕxa for rigid cylindrical objects, -xa for flexible cylindrical objects, -.sˇa´ for hairy and/or composed elements, -ye for liquids) can be suffixed to demonstrative pronouns, numerals and adjectives (cf. Mel´endez Lozano 2000c: 136). They also occur as suffixes with nouns; e.g. in flor-ˇ.sa´ ‘flower’, from Spanish flor, and in eskardon´a-ˇc. e ‘an insect’ (Howard 1979: 88), presumably from a local Spanish word escardona (compare escardar ‘to weed’). Howard (1977a) distinguishes eight distinct slots of affixes that can precede the verbal root in narrative discourse. The functions of the prefixes occurring in these slots belong to the domain of narrative type (historical versus legendary event), (presence and/or participation of the speaker in the event), personal reference, movement, tense and aspect. Mood (imperative, contrary-to-fact, potential), negation and interrogation are also expressed by means of prefixes. Mel´endez Lozano (2000c) lists nine modal prefixes (including negative and evidential) and ten aspectual prefixes. He reports the personal reference markers used for identification of the subject (based on Juajibioy Chindoy and Wheeler 1973), as indicated in table 2.25. His enumeration does not contain any markers referring to a third person singular. The non-singular third-person markers coincide with non-singular first-person markers. Howard (1977a: 7) gives o- for third-person-singular subject. However, many third- person-singular subject forms occurring in her examples seem to lack this prefix, 154 2 The Chibcha Sphere suggesting that a third-person-singular subject marker can be zero as well. A num- ber of examples presented by Howard (1977a) contain unambiguous evidence of the fact that person-of-object is encoded in the verb form. Combinations of third-person markers are illustrated in (248) and (249). Note that the number of the subject marker is determined by the total number of participants.

(248) i-mo-xawiy´ana 3O.SG-3S.PL-say ‘They said to him.’ (Howard 1977a: 58) (249) i-bo-xawiy´ana 3O.SG-3S.D-say ‘He said to him.’ (Howard 1977a: 59)

A first-person-singular object is characterised by the presence of a prefix .sˇ-, as in (250) and (251).

(250) sˇ.-mo-ˇc-c-ob´a 1O.SG-3S.PL-F-PR-kill78 ‘They are going to kill me.’ (Howard 1977a: 58) (251) sˇ.-ko-ˇc-at-oben´a-ye 1O.SG-2S.SG-F-UF-have.power-CN ‘You will not be able (to move) me.’ (Howard 1977a: 59)

In addition, the sequence k-bo- indicates first-person subject combined with second- person object.

(252) k-bo-ˇc-c-ob´a 2O.SG-1S.D-F-PR-kill ‘I shall kill you’ (Howard 1977a: 58)

Nominal case is represented by some twenty-two different suffixes or postpositions (Mel´endez Lozano 2000). Subject and object remain unmarked. Possessive constructions are formed by means of the genitive marker -be. The genitive expression precedes its head.

(253) aˇ´c.-be bc-tait´a I-G big-father ‘my grandfather’ (Mongu´ıS´anchez 1981: 29)

78 The identification of the affixes in the examples remains provisional, considering the lack of an overall grammatical study. The prefix c(a)-ˇ ‘intention’ (Mel´endez Lozano 2000) is here glossed as F ‘future’; the prefix -at- is glossed as ‘unfulfilled’ in Howard (1977b: 276), -ye as a ‘continuative’ (cf. Howard 1977a: 9). The interpretation of -c- as ‘progressive’ is also tentative. 2.19 Esmeralde˜no 155

Kams´a has a copula verb ‘to be’, as illustrated in (254). Number is indicated both on the subject and on the nominal predicate.

ŋ n ŋ (254) kems ˇ.sˇ.o-´ g m- dm´nobon´- g this infant-PL 3S-be fat-PL ‘These little children are fat.’ (Mongu´ıS´anchez in Mel´endez Lozano 2000c)

Nouns are marked for number. There are distinct suffixes for singular, dual and plural. These are singular -(n)a or -(n)´a, dual -(a)ta, and plural -()ŋga.79 Some nouns do not take a singulative suffix (Juajibioy Chindoy and Wheeler 1973, in Mel´endez Lozano 2000c). The distinction is also reflected in the free personal pronouns, e.g. in aˇc. (e) ‘I’, bnd´ata ‘we (dual)’, snd´ata ‘we (dual inclusive)’, b´ ŋga ‘we (plural)’.

2.19 Esmeralde˜no Esmeralde˜no or Atacame,alanguage of the Ecuadorian coastal region survived until the second half of the nineteenth century. Together with Chapalaachi (see section 2.17 Barbacoan), it is the only language of the Ecuadorian coast of which we have some knowledge. All other languages, including the language of the island of Pun´a, have disappeared long ago without leaving any documentation of importance. In the nine- teenth century the Esmeralde˜no language was spoken in the western part of Esmeraldas province on the lower course of the Esmeraldas river valley (called Chinto in Esmer- alde˜no). The possibility that it may have been a remnant of a language of wider extension in the Ecuadorian Pacific region cannot be excluded. W. B. Stevenson, the British secretary to the president of the Audiencia in Quito, visited the area at the beginning of the nineteenth century (Stevenson 1825). He reports that the language was in use in the coastal port of Esmeraldas, a town with a predominantly negroid population. According to local tradition, a shipload of African slaves had landed in the area after a shipwreck, killed the native men and settled with the women. Thanks to these women, the language was preserved. Stevenson also observes that the inhabitants of the neighbouring town of Atacames spoke Spanish. For a more historical account of African–Amerindian relations in the Ecuadorian Pacific area, which date back to the sixteenth century, see Phelan (1967). The zambos (of mixed Indian–black origin) of Esmeraldas managed to maintain a factual independence throughout the colonial period. The only data on the Esmeralde˜no language were collected by J. M. Pallares in 1877. They were published in Wolf (1892), and subsequently reproduced and discussed in Seler (1902: 49–64) and in Jij´on y Caama˜no (1941: 424–539). Constenla Uma˜na (1991: 85–7) notes a number of typological particularities. Object and subject tend to follow the verb; the genitive follows its head; adjectives can occur both before and after the

79 The ending -ŋg is obviously a variant of -ŋga. 156 2 The Chibcha Sphere noun they modify. He observes that these syntactic features are unusual for the region and suggestive of contact with Mesoamerica. A similar influence has been proposed by archaeologists with regard to the local pre-Columbian culture of La Tolita (Willey 1971: 295; cf. Constenla Uma˜na 1991: 87). According to the available data, the Esmeralde˜no vowel system consisted of five vow- els (a, e, i, o, u). However, Jij´on y Caama˜no draws attention to the great amount of vocalic variation, which may point at the existence of a three-vowel system (a, i, u), rather than a five-vowel system. He suggests that the language may have had nasal vowels and reports that there was a special vowel sound, written a``a or a´´a,which was limited to the ending of the past participle (e.g. in yat´a´ale ‘finished’). The ac- cent is often indicated with a diacritic (by Seler in particular), suggesting that stress was contrastive. The consonant inventory comprised voiceless and voiced stops (p, t, k; b, d, g); a voiceless affricate (ch); voiceless and voiced fricatives (f, s, sh, j, h; v); nasals (m, n); vibrants (r, rr); laterals (l, ll); and glides (w, y). The interpretation of these symbols remains uncertain. It is doubtful if the symbol v represented a separate sound, because it frequently alternates with b.Acontrast between h and j is also unlikely, as they appear to be in complementary distribution. The symbol h is found (very seldom) in word-initial position, whereas j mainly appears inside a word. Internal clusters of two consonants (including geminates) are frequent, often as a result of vowel suppression. The palatal lateral ll [ly]isoften found in syllable-final positions (as in Quechua), e.g. in allki ‘pain’. Jij´on y Caama˜no’smorphological analysis of the Esmeralde˜no language has to be used with great care because of methodological deficiencies. (Many forms are overanalysed.) He has, nonetheless, managed to expose a number of interesting facts concerning this little known language and its relations to neighbouring languages. The Esmeralde˜no language uses both prefixes and suffixes. Personal reference and case are indicated by means of suffixes. The suffixes -s(a) and -va refer to first and second person, respectively. They indicate a possessor with nouns, and either a subject or an object with verbs. In some verb forms subject and object markers can occur in combination. When -sa indicates nominal possession a preceding vowel is normally lost (except with monosyllabic roots); the same may occur with long verb bases (e.g. bases of more than two syllables). The suffix -sa can be stressed, but this does not seem to be always the case. A suffix referring to a third-person possessor is -e or -´e (Seler 1902: 61; Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 450).

(255) mil-s´a [mil-e ‘(someone’s) heart/stomach’] heart/stomach-1P ‘my heart’, ‘my stomach’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 539) 2.19 Esmeralde˜no 157

(256) mul-va [mula ‘eye’, ‘face’] eye-2P ‘your eye’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 450) (257) ene-s´a eat-1S ‘I eat.’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 509) (258) peli-va row-2S ‘You are rowing.’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 524) (259) pisko-v´a-s sell-2S-1O ‘Sell it to me!’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 524)

The form in (259) appears to have an imperative interpretation. Regular imperatives are indicated with special endings, e.g. -ma for second person singular and -aja for first person plural.

(260) kuli-ma rise-2S.SG.IM ‘Stand up!’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 509) (261) naka atarai-ti-aja [Spanish atarraya ‘casting-net’] let.us.go net-V-1P.PL.IM ‘Let us go and throw out the nets!’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 502)

Jij´on y Caama˜no observes that many verb forms are apparently used ‘impersonally’ as they do not contain any indication of personal reference at all. He also notes the absence of free personal pronouns. This may be due, of course, to the deficient nature of the material. A very frequent suffix, which occurs both with verbs and with adjectives, is -le. Its function may be to indicate a state or situation.80

(262) akolinshe-le be.indebted-ST ‘I am indebted.’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 502) (263) uba-le die-ST ‘He/she died’, ‘dead’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 505)

80 Instead of akulinshe-le (∼akolinshe-le) one also finds akulinshe-le-ne ‘I am indebted’. It is used with both first- and with third-person subjects; Seler (1902: 61) suggests that -len´e indicated present tense. 158 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(264) uvve´ kar´o-le water red-ST ‘red-coloured water’ (Seler 1902: 55; Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 510)

Some adjectives obligatorily contain the suffix -le. This is the case, in particular, of agroup of adjectives that have the canonical shape vi-/bi- ...-le,asinvi-k´o-le ‘dirty’, vi-sh´u-le ‘cold’, vi-se-le ‘good’, bi-ga-le ‘bad’. Negation is indicated by means of a prefix ba-; the frame bal-...-ka indicates negative possession, as in (265):

(265) bal-di-ka NE-hand-OW ‘one-handed’ (lit. ‘having no hand’, ‘with a hand missing’) (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 428)

Esmeralde˜no nouns frequently contain classifying prefixes which refer to shape. Par- ticularly common are the prefixes mu- ‘indivisible bulky object’, ra- ‘protruding ele- ment’, ta- ‘long object’, and vi(l)- ‘skin’, ‘wrapping’. These elements are either used to reinforce basic semantic concepts, or to distinguish between related concepts. Words referring to protruding body parts are normally preceded by ra-, e.g. ra-rapo ‘hair’, ra-rap-s´a ‘my hair’, ra-ak-s´a (Seler: re-ac-s´a)‘my ear’, ra-an-s´a ‘my tongue’, ra-au-s´a ‘my nose’ (Seler: re-au-s´a). A contrastive use of the classifying prefixes can be observed in the following pairs (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 435–6).

(266) ra-tuna vil-tuna protruding.element-mouth.area wrapping-mouth.area81 ‘beard’ ‘lips’ (267) di-sa ta-di-sa (Seler: ta-d´ı-ssa) hand-1P long.object-hand-1P ‘my hand’ ‘my arm’ (268) ta-kel-s´amu-kil-sa long.object-bone-1P bulky.object-bone-1P ‘my back’ ‘my bone’

Case relations are indicated in a heterogeneous way. Both case suffixes and preposi- tional elements are used; in (269) and (270) the suffix -ra refers to location (‘in’), but tun

81 The attested word for ‘my mouth’ is vil-to-s´a (Seler 1902: 54). 2.19 Esmeralde˜no 159 is translated as ‘in front of’. The prepositional status of tun is related to the possessed– possessor order noted above. (The case marker -ra is similar to the postvocalic allomorph of directional -ta in Awa Pit, cf. section 2.17.)

(269) ama t´ushe qu´ıam-ra there be house-L ‘He is there in the house’. (Seler 1902: 61) (270) tun kian-sa front house-1P ‘in front of my house’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 517)

Cases of noun incorporation have been attested:

(271) nuts-tate-aja carry-pole-1S.PL.IM ‘Let us carry poles!’ (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 481)

The genetic relations of the Esmeralde˜no language have been the object of some spec- ulation. Seler (1902) suggested a relationship with the Yaruro linguistic isolate of the Venezuelan lowlands, emphasising that the evidence was insufficient. This suggestion was followed by Loukotka (1968), who brought both languages together in a Paleo– Chibchan branch within his Chibchan family. In 1941 Jij´on y Caama˜no had already compared Seler’s evidence and found no more than two good lexical look-alikes, uwi ‘water’ and taha ‘foot’ (Yaruro ta), as well as a number of vaguely resembling lexical pairs. Although Jij´on y Caama˜no was seldom reluctant to accept highly controversial proposals of cognation, he found the evidence too weak in this case. Instead, he com- pared Esmeralde˜no words with their equivalents in Chibchan languages and a series of Colombian and Ecuadorian languages which he thought related to Chibchan. A short inspection of the proposed shared lexicon shows that the resemblances are convincing only for so far as Chapalaachi and Tsafiki, the two Barbacoan neighbours of Esmer- alde˜no, are concerned. The similarities with these languages, particularly with Tsafiki, are astonishing and indicate that intensive borrowing must have occurred. (A genetic origin for these similarities is less likely because Esmeralde˜no is otherwise very different from Barbacoan.) The shared lexicon mainly consists of plant and animal names, but it also includes some basic lexicon (‘hand’, ‘firewood’). In (272) a number of shared or possibly related items in Esmeralde˜no and Tsafiki are presented; the items in (273) are found in the three languages. 160 2 The Chibcha Sphere

(272) Esmeralde˜no Tsafiki amane am´an, amana ‘now’ bule bol´ı ‘gourd’ di t´ede ‘hand’ [cf. Tsafiki ned´e ‘foot’] duka du ‘hill’, ‘mountain’ kinke k´ınki ‘tick’ matra m´atara ‘iguana’ nata n´ahta ‘shad (a fish: Sp. s´abalo)’ para p´ara ‘wild boar’ pep-le pehp´e ‘fan (for fire)’ vara b´aro ‘a bird of prey (Sp. gallinazo)’ ware w´alan ‘macaw’ (273) Esmeralde˜no Tsafiki Chapalaachi chulaciw´ ˇ ılacil ˇ ya ‘pineapple’ d´ototu‘earth’ kuve kuw´a kuwa ‘cotton’ muripe mol´omulu ‘bean (Sp. frijol)’ ta-p´ake pahk´ı pahki ‘bamboo species (Sp. guadua)’ piama pin´ı pinye ‘snake’ sheve s´abe sabe ‘rubber’ [cf. Spanish jebe] walpa w´alpa walyapa ‘chicken’ [Quechua walypa]

The word for ‘bamboo’ ta-p´ake is remarkable because it contains the classifying prefix for long objects in addition to a shared root. If the Esmeralde˜no word for ‘tree’ t´a(k)te is analysed in the same way, its second element may be compared to te,which means ‘firewood’ in both Tsafiki and Chapalaachi. Conversely, the Esmeralde˜no word for ‘firewood’ chite can be compared to Tsafiki cid´ˇ e and Chapalaachi ciˇ ‘wood’, ‘tree’; in addition, it contains an element te,which may be the same as the one found in t´a(k)te. Apart from the inevitable walypa, Quechua loans were almost non-existent in Esmeralde˜no.82 Of particular interest is the word sheve ‘rubber’, which is found as jebe in modern Andean Spanish. The evidence seems to indicate that this very common word was borrowed from an Ecuadorian coastal language, be it Esmeralde˜no or not. The past linguistic contacts of Esmeralde˜no deserve more attention than they have received so far, particularly, in the light of processes of creolisation. Given the historical background, the possibility of African influences should be taken into consideration.

82 Interestingly, all Quechua dialects north of Ca˜nar (as well as Awa Pit) have reflexes of atalypa (< *atawalypa) for ‘chicken’. The fact that the languages of the Ecuadorian Pacific area have reflexes of walypa suggests a different Quechua loan source. 2.20 The eastern Colombian lowlands 161

Finally, a few interesting lexical coincidences can still be mentioned, namely, the words for ‘fire’ mu (cf. Culli mu) and ‘to die’ uba (cf. Kams´a-oba-na). Rivet (1942) mentions a small number of lexical similarities with Yurumangu´ı.

2.20 Overview of the languages of the eastern Colombian lowlands In the northwest of South America, as well as further south, the contrast between the Andean cordilleras and highlands and the eastern lowlands with their tropical climate is no less than dramatic. Roughly speaking, this is reflected in the distribution of ethnic groups and languages as migrations tended to be confined to either one of the two regions. In the eastern lowlands of Colombia, watered by the Amazon and Orinoco rivers and their numerous tributaries, natural borders play a less important role than in the Andes, so that long distance migrations were not unusual. As a result, many lowland languages belong to families of considerable extension, and some individual languages are separated from their closest relatives by a distance of thousands of kilometres. A striking example is provided by a group of Cariban speakers which inhabited the department of Caquet´ain southeastern Colombia (now in Amazonas and Guaviare). The closest living relatives of their language, called Carijona (also Guaque, Hianacoto or Umaua, possibly clan names; cf. Durbin and Seijas 1973c), are the languages of the Trio and the Akuriyo in the border region of Brazil and Surinam (Meira 2000). Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to view the division between the Andes and the eastern lowlands as impermeable. It is likely that groups of Andean origin were forced into the pre-Andean foothills and lowlands on several occasions, and, vice versa, the occupation of Andean river valleys, such as the Magdalena valley, by Amazonian peoples has been attested beyond reasonable doubt. In the preceding sections we have discussed several lowland languages which appear to have an Andean origin, namely, Uw Cuwa (section 2.10), Kams´a (section 2.18), and possibly Andaqu´ı (section 2.16). One small family and an isolate, which are located near the Andes without substantial eastward extensions, are further candidates for such a background. Additional research is needed in order to establish their possible genetic connections. The Betoi family (cf. Constenla Uma˜na 1991; Zamponi 1996) consisted of several closely related languages or dialects (Airico, Betoi, Ele, Jirara, Lolaca, Situfa, etc.), located in the Colombian departments of Arauca and Casanare and in the Venezue- lan state of . There is a small group of Spanish-speaking survivors. The Cof´an or Ai-ngae language is spoken by a strong ethnic group inhabiting a border area in the western part of the Colombian department of Putumayo and the Ecuadorian province of Sucumb´ıos (Borman 1976; Constenla Uma˜na 1991). The Cof´an number well over a thousand, but their language still lacks a grammatical description. A further linguistic isolate, located in the Sierra de la Macarena in the department of Meta, is Tinigua (cf. Tobar Ortiz 2000). It is the last surviving language of a small family, which further comprised Pamigua and Majigua. The language had long been considered 162 2 The Chibcha Sphere lost until two aged speakers were discovered about 1990. According to tradition, the Tinigua migrated into their present territory from the Yar´ıriver in the department of Caquet´a, where they were neighbours of the Huitotoan peoples until the beginning of the twentieth century. The Guahiboan language family is mainly confined to the savannah-like area known as the Colombian llanos with extensions into neighbouring Venezuela. With more than 20,000 people the Guahibo or Sikuani are the largest native group in eastern Colom- bia. Their territory covers most of the department of Vichada and parts of the depart- ments of Arauca, Casanare, Guain´ıa and Meta. Some 5,000 Sikuani live in Venezuela (Ardila 2000). The Guahiboan family further includes three smaller languages: Cuiba, Guayabero and Hitn¨u or Macaguane. Guayabero is the most divergent language with respect to the other three; it is spoken along the in the departments of Meta and Guaviare. Sikuani and Cuiba form a dialect continuum (Queixal´os 1993). The Guahiboan family has been strongly influenced by neighbouring Arawakan languages. However, a genetic relationship, as assumed by Loukotka (1968), is unlikely. The Arawakan languages once had an important presence in eastern Colombia. The Achagua people inhabited the Meta region in the Colombian llanos.Agrammar and vocabulary of the Achagua language was published during the colonial period (Neira and Ribero 1762). Today a group of a few hundred speakers survive along the , mainly between Puerto L´opez and Puerto Gait´an (department of Meta). Achagua is closely related to Piapoco (c. 4,000 speakers). The Piapoco live near the banks of the Guaviare and Meta rivers and in the area between these two rivers (departments of Meta and Vichada). The extinct of Vichada, known from colonial documents, for a time gave its name to (part of) the Arawakan family (Payne 1993). More Arawakan languages are found in the Amazonian southeastern part of Colombia. The most important one from a numerical point of view is Curripaco in the department of Guain´ıa (7,000 speakers). In neighbouring Brazil this language is known as Baniva do I¸cana.Arelated but distinct language is Baniva del Guain´ıa (G´omez-Imbert 2000; Landaburu 2000b). It is closely related to the in Venezuela, which has recently become extinct. Mosonyi (2000) notes specific lexical similarities between Baniva–Yavitero and the Guajiro language (see section 2.12). The Cabiyar´ı and Tariana languages in the department of Vaup´es (the latter mainly in Brazil) are surrounded by Tucanoan languages and are subject to language shift. Yucuna is spoken in Amazonas on the lower Caquet´a. Finally, the language of the Res´ıgaro,who were all but extermi- nated during the rubber boom, was still spoken in the 1970s by individuals in a mixed community of Bora and Huitoto in the Peruvian–Colombian border area (Allin 1976). Two languages of the Saliban family, Piaroa and S´aliba, are spoken in the northern llanos of Colombia. They are clearly, though not closely related. The Piaroa, who live in a border area in the department of Vichada, are much more numerous in Venezuela 2.20 The eastern Colombian lowlands 163

(c. 10,000). The S´aliba colonised the valley of the Meta river during colonial times. Their language acted as a general medium of communication in the Jesuit missions of the Meta, Orinoco and Vichada valleys during the seventeenth century (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 172–3). A linguistic isolate of the Venezuelan llanos with occasional extensions into Colombia is Yaruro or Pum´e.Two other isolates from that area, Guamo and Otomaco, have long been extinct. The language family known as Mak´u–Puinave is found in the Amazonian southeast (Guain´ıa, Guaviare and Vaup´es). The Puinave language, which has several thousand speakers (mostly in Guain´ıa), is mainly known from word lists (cf. Landaburu 1998). The name Mak´u is applied to a number of small tribes, some of which continue to live in isolation. The Nukak of Guaviare are such a group. The speakers of Kakua and Hupda (or Yuhupde) can be found in the Vaup´es region, in an area mainly occupied by Tucanoan peoples. The Kakua act as servants to several Tucanoan groups (Mel´endez Lozano 2000d). Martins and Martins (1999) consider Kakua and Nukak to be variants of the same language. The Hupda–Yuhupde language extends into adjacent areas of Brazil. The Mak´uan languages are tonal. They have a system of contours of nasal consonants which can be pre- and postoralised. This is reminiscent of the Ge languages in Brazil (e.g. Kaingang) and the Harakmbut language in Peru, although there seem to be no lexical correspondences. The Tucanoan languages are spoken in a large discontinuous section of the Amazonian region, extending from the foothills of the Andes well into Brazil. Traditionally, two subfamilies are distinguished: Western Tucanoan and Eastern Tucanoan. Among the Western Tucanoan languages Siona acquired the status of a lengua general during the colonial period. It was used as a missionary language for the missions of the Putumayo river (Triana and Antorveza 1987: 171–2). Today only a few hundred speakers remain, mainly on the Putumayo, where it forms the border between Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.Inaddition to Siona, Wheeler (2000) lists the languages Angutero (or Pioje), Koreguaje–Tama, Makaguaje, Orej´on, Secoya (Ecuadorian and Peruvian varieties) and Tetete as Western Tucanoan. All these languages are very closely related, and some differ at the dialect rather than at language level. The Koreguaje and Tama together form a somewhat divergent group and are difficult to separate linguistically. They occupy areas on the Orteguaza and Cagu´an rivers adjacent to the Upper Magdalena highlands (see section 2.16), where many of them were transferred as workers during the colonial period. Koreguaje is considered to be a tonal language (Rodr´ıguez Gonz´alez 2000). The Eastern Tucanoan languages occupy a major portion of the department of Vaup´es and a small part of Amazonas. More groups are found in northwestern Brazil. A unique feature of this area is that its population is almost entirely indigenous. Eastern Tucanoan peoples are exogamic and marry outside their own ethnolinguistic group. There has been extensive work on the Vaup´es region with respect to language contact and 164 2 The Chibcha Sphere multilingualism (Sorensen 1967, 1985; Jackson 1983; Aikhenvald 1999). In view of the large number of tribal groups and names, there is some confusion regarding the ex- act inventory of languages. Ardila (1993) and G´omez-Imbert (2000) distinguish fifteen Eastern Tucanoan languages in Colombia: Bar´a (or North Barasana), Barasana (or Taiwano), Carapana, Cubeo, Desano, Guanano, Macuna, Piratapuyo, Pisamira, Siri- ano, Tanimuca (or Letuama), Tatuyo, Tucano, Tuyuca and Yurut´ı.With more than 6,000 speakers each (Arango and S´anchez 1998), Cubeo and Tucano are the largest Tucanoan languages; Pisamira has only a few dozen speakers. The Eastern Tucanoan languages are typical Amazonian languages. They have contrastive tone, suprasegmental nasality and elaborate nominal classifier systems. The Boran and the Huitotoan languages are spoken mainly in the Colombian depart- ment of Amazonas, between the Caquet´a and Putumayo rivers, and in adjacent parts of Peru. They are now generally considered related (Aschmann 1993). A linguistic isolate found in the same area is Andoque (on the Aduchi river near Araracuara on the Caquet´a). This region is the area most hit by the excesses of rubber exploitation at the beginning of the twentieth century. It led the to near extinction and decimated the Bora and the Huitoto. The Boran group comprises the languages Bora, Mira˜na and Muinane (Pati˜no Rosselli 2000). The Bora, the most numerous group, are mainly settled in Peru. The Huitotoan group consists of the languages Huitoto, Nonuya and Ocaina (the latter mainly in Peru). In Bora tonal contrast is exploited for the expression of grammat- ical distinctions. Huitoto has several dialects (Mnka, Murui, Npode). All indigenous languages of the area have rich systems of nominal classifiers. The Leticia triangle, a part of Colombian territory situated between the Putumayo and the Amazon rivers, has speakers of Cocama, Ticuna and Yagua, three languages which have their main population of users in the neighbouring countries (Brazil and Peru). A virtually undocumented linguistic isolate is Yur´ı (on the Pur´eriver in the Brazilian– Colombian border area of Amazonas). The language has long been considered extinct, but there have been recent reports of speakers (Arango and S´anchez 1998; Pati˜no Rosselli 2000). The richest source of information on Colombian lowland languages is again Gonz´alez and Rodr´ıguez (2000). In addition, there are grammatical studies of several individual languages: Achagua (Mel´endez Lozano 1989, 1998; Wilson 1992), Andoque (Land- aburu 1979), Barasano (Jones and Jones 1991), Bora (Thiesen and Weber forthcom- ing), Guayabero (Tobar Ortiz 1989), Sikuani (Queixal´os 1985, 1998, 2000), Tanimuca– Retuar˜a (Strom 1992), Tariana (Aikhenvald 2003), Tatuyo (G´omez-Imbert 1982), Ticuna (Montes Rodr´ıguez 1995) and Yagua (Payne and Payne 1990). 3

The Inca Sphere

The term ‘Inca Sphere’ is used to cover the area that falls within the limits of Tahuantinsuyo, ‘the Empire of the Four Quarters’, at the moment of its greatest ex- tension under the Inca ruler Huayna Capac (c. 1520). It roughly coincides with the sphere of predominance of the Middle Andean civilisation before its destruction at the hands of Spanish conquerors in 1532–4. Speaking in modern terms, and from north to south, the Inca Sphere includes the Andean and Pacific regions of Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, northern Chile and northern Argentina. (The languages of the Pacific region of northern Ecuador were discussed in chapter 2, whereas information on the Quechua variety spoken in Colombia is found in the present chapter.) As we have indicated in the introductory chapter, the Middle Andean civilisation did not attain its greatest radiation until shortly before the European invasion. During the Middle Formative (800–400 BC) the predominance of Chav´ın de Hu´antar as a centre of cultural influence remained confined to portions of what is now central and northern Peru (Lumbreras 1974: 57–93). The period between 100 BC and AD 600 was marked by political disintegration, whereas the artistic production reached its highest peak in the history of the area with the development of the regional cultures of Paracas, Nazca and Mochica. After the decline of these local cultures, the influence of Pachacamac, situated just south of Lima at the mouth of the Lur´ın river, and Tiahuanaco on the Bolivian altiplano became strongly felt throughout the area. The site of Huari (AD 700–1100), situated near Ayacucho in the mountains of central Peru, is thought to have been the capital of an empire based on military conquest (Isbell and Schreiber 1978), an interpretation which is not universally accepted, however (Shady Sol´ıs 1988). This ‘imperial’ phase was followed by a further period of political disintegration, again characterised by local cultural developments. Among them were the , located in the lower valley of the Chancay river, north of Lima, and the Chim´u king- dom, a continuation of the earlier Mochica society with its capital at Chanch´an near present-day Trujillo. The eventual unification of the entire Middle Andean area was achieved by the Inca lords of Cuzco. Their conquests began in the early fifteenth century and continued until 166 3 The Inca Sphere

PANAMA VENEZUELA

G

U

Y A N

A COLOMBIA

PASTO ESMERALDEÑO CARA S E C Quito A P QUIJO M O PANZALEO MANTA A N C O CANELO H C PURUHÁ HUANCA- CAÑAR VILCA PALTA PUNÁ 2 1 CHIRINO 4 . 3 C ón R

6 H aran BRAZIL

TALLÁN 5 A M

7 C

SECHURA H OLMOS A HIBITO MOCHICA CULLI CHOLÓN

Trujillo Q PANATAGUA U QUINGNAM E C PERUH Q U U A E I C Lima H U JAQARU A A Cuzco I Y I M A IN R U A A Q A N U

P Y C U R BOLIVIA O M

L U I

A

R Potosí CHIPAYA A

C P H A

A R

N A

G G O HUMAHUACA U A ATACAMEÑO Y

Explanation of language names E LULE indicated by numbers A T I Tucumán 1 Malacato L U TONOCOTÉ 2 Rabona, Bolona, Xiroa G A I 3 Tabancale I D 4 Patagón

H ARGENTINA 5 Sácata URUGUAY

6 Bagua C 7 Copallén

Map 3 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the sixteenth century 3 The Inca Sphere 167 before the arrival of the Spanish invaders in 1532. Ecuador was one of the last areas to be conquered. The Incas practised a policy of forced migration. Recently conquered nations from the confines of the empire were replaced by loyal subjects from other areas. The populations so established were called mitmaq in Quechua (in a Hispanicised form mitimaes). Opinions differ over the importance which is attached to the effect of the mitimaes upon the development of the native languages. Populations of outlying areas, such as the Ca˜nar of the Ecuadorian inter-Andean valley (modern Azuay and Ca˜nar) and the Chacha of the Chachapoyas region in the northeastern highlands of Peru, were taken to the area surrounding Cuzco (Brundage 1967). So far, there have been no reports of traces of their original languages that might have been preserved in Cuzco Quechua. Before he died in the town of Cajamarca, the Inca ruler Huayna Capac divided the empire between his two sons. The northern part, with Quito as its capital, was given to Atahuallpa, the son of an Ecuadorian mother of the Puruh´a nation. Huascar, the official heir, received Cuzco and the south. The civil war that soon broke out between the two brothers was to become a stroke of luck for the conqueror Francisco Pizarro, a native of Trujillo in Extremadura, Spain. After a successful surprise attack, he imprisoned Atahuallpa in Cajamarca and had him tried and executed on a dubious charge of treason. In the meantime, from his prison, Atahuallpa himself had ordered the assassination of his rival Huascar. The power vacuum that emerged from these events permitted the Spaniards to gain control of the Inca’s subjects and territory in less than two years. It meant the end of Andean civilisation as a separate entity and the beginning of profound transformations, not least in the linguistic domain. After Spanish power had become consolidated, the former Inca domain was ruled by a viceroy, who kept his residence in Lima. The Indian population suffered a demographic decline of dramatic proportions, which continued throughout most of the colonial period. Three of the principal Andean languages, Quechua, Aymara and Puquina, acquired the status of ‘general languages’ (lenguas generales)tobeused in the administration and for religious purposes. Quechua, already an official language during the final period of Inca administration, was by far the most important one, followed by Aymara. Puquina and a score of other local languages gradually fell into disuse. The use of the great Andean languages for purposes of religion and administration of justice was encouraged until their interdiction by the Bourbon rulers in 1770 (Rivarola 1990: 108). Notwithstanding a short revival of the Quechua language during the early times of independence at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the prestige of the Andean languages declined dramatically, and they gradually became confined to rural areas. However, in spite of their low social appreciation, both Quechua and Aymara have preserved a substantial number of speakers until today. 168 3 The Inca Sphere

3.1 The languages and their distribution The present-day linguistic situation in the central Andes is dominated by the presence of two native language families, Quechuan and Aymaran.Astogenetic depth and the nature of internal differentiation, they are comparable to the Romance or in Europe. Historically and also numerically, Quechuan is by far the most important of the two with an estimated number of speakers ranging between 8.5 million (Cerr´on- Palomino 1987a) and 10 million (Itier 1997). The number of Aymaran speakers has been estimated between 2 and 3 million speakers (Briggs 1992).1 In Andean everyday speech, the Quechuan family (locally called Quichua in Ecuador and Argentina) is referred to as a ‘language’. Its numerous local varieties are traditionally called ‘dialects’, although they may differ considerably. Speakers of different Quechua dialects often have a difficult time understanding each other. If the dialects are not closely related, there may be no mutual comprehension at all. Quechua speakers are strongly aware of dialect differences which permit local groups to identify themselves as natives of a particular village or area to the extent that quechua is often interpreted as a generic term for any linguistic variety used by Indians, rather than as a language name (hence expressions such as ‘la quechua aymara’ referring to Aymara or varieties of Quechua influenced by Aymara). It will be shown that at least some of the linguistic diversity within the Quechuan family is not recent and probably dates back to the beginning of our era. Therefore, many linguists now prefer to speak of ‘Quechuan languages’, rather than of ‘Quechua dialects’. The question remains: how many Quechuan languages are there? Even though Quechua is being pushed back by Spanish in many areas, some of its major varieties, such as , , Bolivian Quechua, Cuzco Quechua and Ecuadorian Quechua, are quite viable. In the Andean countries Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, Quechua is the main native language. Bilingual educa- tion programmes and official recognition, albeit half-hearted, have enhanced linguistic awareness and provided a certain stimulus for the preservation of the language. The area in which varieties of Quechua are spoken nowadays is not continuous and has a protracted shape extending along the Andean cordilleras from the departments of Caquet´a, Nari˜no and Putumayo in southern Colombia to the province of del Estero in the lowlands of northern Argentina. It also includes parts of the Ecuadorian and Peruvian lowlands to the east of the Andes. In the Quechua-speaking areas of Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador, the introduction of Quechua occurred at the cost of local native languages. At several points, however, the Quechua linguistic domain is

1 Recent census data indicate that 8,000,000 is a more realistic figure for the number of Quechua speakers (Chirinos Rivera 1998, 2001). For the number of Aymara speakers 2,000,000 is probably close to reality. 3.1 The languages and their distribution 169

1 COLOMBIA 2 Quito 3 ECUADOR

. n R Marañó BRAZIL

Chiclayo 4 Cajamarca

PERU

5 Lima 6 Cuzco 7 BOLIVIA

La Paz Arequipa 8 Santa Cruz de la Sierra

9 Explanation of

language names C indicated by numbers PARAGUAY 1 Awa Pit

2 Cha'palaachi H 3 Tsafiki 10 4 Mochica(†) I 5 Pacaraos Quechua 6 Jaqaru and Cauqui 7 Callahuaya L 8 Uchumataqu 11 Santiago

9 Chipaya E del Estero 10 Atacameño(†) 11 Quechua dialects of Catamarca and La Rioja(†) AYMARA ARGENTINA QUECHUA II Aymara and Quechua II: overlapping area

Map 4 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the mid twentieth century 170 3 The Inca Sphere intersected by areas where other languages are predominant. One of these intermediate areas, where Aymara is the main language, lies to the east and south of Lake Titicaca in Bolivia and Peru. Another such area is situated in the northern Peruvian Andes (in the departments of Amazonas, Cajamarca, La Libertad and Piura; in the province of Pallasca, ) and in the adjacent Andean region of Ecuador (province of Loja). In this extensive area Quechua is present only locally, the predominant language now being Spanish. It does not mean, however, that the area is less ‘Indian’ than those where Quechua is predominant.2 The native languages of northern Peru, now all extinct, showed themselves resistant to the process of Quechuanisation. Instead, they directly gave way to Spanish somewhere between the eighteenth and the twentieth centuries. The outlines of their original distribution can be recovered through a study of the local toponymy (cf. Adelaar 1999). In other areas, such as the highlands of Ecuador, northwestern Argentina and much of Bolivia, Quechua did replace the local languages. Aymaran, the second native language family in importance of the Inca Sphere region, has been the subject of much terminological confusion. It has been known by two different names, Jaqi and Aru. The term Jaqi,tobepronounced [h´aqe], was introduced by Hardman (see, for instance, Hardman 1978b). It has the meaning of ‘man’, ‘human being’ in the languages belonging to the family, and most US authors prefer it. The other name, Aru,isfrom Torero (1970). It is the predominant term for ‘language’ or ‘speech’ in the Aymaran languages and is used in Peru and in several European countries.3 Our choice of the term ‘Aymaran family’ is inspired by the earlier tradition and by Cerr´on- Palomino (1993), who also points at a discrepancy in the terminology connected with the two linguistic groupings. The internal differentiation of Quechuan is by no means less important than that of Aymaran. Yet, Aymaran has been treated as a ‘family’ (with languages), whereas Quechuan is seen as a ‘language’ (with dialects).4 The Aymaran family has two living branches of unequal size. The southern branch accounts for a large majority of the Aymaran speakers. It consists of the itself, which is distributed over three countries (Bolivia, Chile and Peru). The Aymara linguistic area is situated along the shores of Lake Titicaca, except for its western end. Away from the lake, the main extensions of Aymara are towards the south, southeast

2 The nineteenth-century geographer and naturalist Antonio Raimondi (cited in Alvarez-Brun 1970) used the absence of Quechua in the province of Pallasca, in contradistinction to its presence in other Ancashino provinces further south, as a criterion for the non-Indian character and higher level of culture of that area. This argument is still often heard in northern Peru. 3 Hardman (1978a, b) rejects the term ‘Aru’ because it is often used for referring to the sound of animals in the Aymara language. 4 We shall not follow the habit of referring to Jaqaru and Cauqui as Central Aimara or Tupino (Tupe) Aimara, and to Aymara itself as Southern Aimara or Collavino Aimara (cf. Cerr´on-Palomino 1995a: 104). To us, Aymara is a language within the Aymaran family. It does not include the other varieties. 3.1 The languages and their distribution 171 and southwest. They include some areas which come close to the Pacific coast, in the departments of Moquegua and Tacna in southern Peru, and in the region of Tarapac´ain northern Chile. In Bolivia, parts of the departments of Cochabamba, Oruro and Potos´ı are Aymara-speaking. The northern branch of the Aymaran family is mainly confined to a number of villages belonging to the municipality (distrito)ofTupe, situated in the province of Yauyos (, Peru). It comprises two linguistic varieties, Jaqaru and Cauqui. Jaqaru is spoken by some 725 speakers in the villages of Tupe, Aiza and Colca, and in the coastal localities to which Tupinos have migrated (Pozzi-Escot 1998).5 Cauqui speakers are found in the villages of Cachuy, Chav´ın and Canch´an. Their number is estimated at 11 (in 1998). Cauqui is nearly undocumented. Traditionally,the term Cauqui has been used to refer to the northern branch of Aymaran in its totality (kawki means ‘which place?’ in Aymaran). Locally, however, the use of the term Cauqui as a name for the language appears to be restricted to the Cachuy variety (Hardman 1966, 1983a). There have been conflicting reports on whether or not Cauqui constitutes a separate language. A comparison of the Cauqui and Jaqaru versions of a quatrilingual text elaborated by Belleza, Ferrell and Huayhua (1992) suggests that the differences do not exceed the level of mutual intelligibility. Therefore, Cauqui is sometimes referred to as Jaqaru of Cachuy (e.g. in Belleza Castro 1995). Historical sources, toponymy and loan words bear witness to the original extension of the Aymaran languages. Their pre-Inca expansion must have been nearly as impressive as that of Quechua during the colonial period. There is evidence of Aymaran presence in most of what is now southern and central Peru and in all of the Bolivian highlands. A document of 1600 for the instruction of Catholic priests, which was published by Bouysse-Cassagne (1975), shows the predominant position of Aymara in Alto Per´u ‘Upper Peru’, as Andean Bolivia was then called. Once the Aymaran languages occupied strongholds in what is now southern Peru and Bolivia, they began to influence the surrounding languages. Loan words in the Tacanan languages of the Bolivian lowland forest region (Girard 1971; Fabre 1995) and in the of Argentina and Chile show specific Aymara influence. The centre of radiation for such influence was clearly the Bolivian altiplano. The lending language was Aymara, not (Proto-)Aymaran, which identifies the process of borrowing as relatively recent. Numerically, the other native languages of the central Andean region are not nearly as important as those belonging to the Quechuan and Aymaran families, and most of them are extinct. In Ecuador, three languages of the Barbacoan family remain in use

5 Hardman (1983a) gives a number of 2,000 speakers for Jaqaru, including some 300 outside the community. 172 3 The Inca Sphere on the western side of the Pacific Andean range. There are hardly any data on the other languages once spoken in that area, except for the extinct Esmeralde˜no or Atacame language (see section 2.19). The southern sector of the eastern slopes of the Ecuadorian Andes is inhabited by the Jivaroan Shuar. The Shuar linguistic area is concentrated in the provinces of Zamora- Chinchipe and Morona-Pastaza. Historically, Jivaroan-speaking groups may have inhab- ited the province of Loja in the southernmost part of the inter-Andean valley (Gnerre 1975). Further north, the eastern slopes and rainforest are inhabited by speakers of Quechua, which has replaced earlier local languages (languages of the Zaparoan family, among others). The original native languages of the Ecuadorian inter-Andean valley are all extinct. They are also virtually undocumented, except for numerous place names and a few lexical items mentioned in Spanish colonial sources. Some more lexical items and possible substratum elements can be found in the modern dialects which together constitute Ecuadorian Highland Quechua. For the pre-Quechuan languages of highland Ecuador Barbacoan and Mochica affinities have been proposed (except for Palta and Malacato, which are usually assigned to the Jivaroan language family). The language of the Cara in the northern section of the inter-Andean valley has been associated with Barbacoan, those of the Ca˜nar and the Puruh´ainits central part to Mochica. It is doubtful if the scanty information on these languages will ever permit us to confirm any such proposals. Much interpretation of the available linguistic data (mostly toponymy) is due to the work of Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940–5) and Paz y Mi˜no (1936–61). The coast and mountains of northern Peru exhibited a mosaic of languages, which are now all extinct or probably so. What remains is Quechua in those areas where it became firmly rooted (near the town of Cajamarca and further north near Bambamarca; in a few villages in the provinces of Chachapoyas and Luya in the department of Amazonas; and in the area of Ca˜naris and Incahuasi in the interior highlands of the province of Ferre˜nafe, ). There is evidence that Quechua never became widespread in the region. Early Spanish chroniclers, such as Garcilaso de la Vega (1609: Book 7, chapter 3) confirm this (cf. Torero 1986). The languages of northern Peru are somewhat better documented than those of the Ecuadorian highlands. Best known is the Mochica language (also called Muchic or Yunga)ofthe coastal region near . Mochica became extinct around the middle of the twentieth century, although some individuals are said to remember words and sentences. A rather substantial amount of premodern grammatical and lexical descriptive material on the Mochica language awaits updating and reinterpretation in a contemporary framework (see section 3.4). For the Culli language, formerly spoken in the extensive highland area between the coastal town of Trujillo and the Mara˜n´on river, and for the Sechura and Tall´an languages 3.1 The languages and their distribution 173 of coastal Piura, short word lists are available (cf. Torero 1986; Adelaar 1988). Several other extinct languages have been identified in the , mainly on the basis of local toponymy (Torero 1989, 1993a). Although the final disappearance of these languages may have been relatively recent, most of them are not even known by name, nor are they mentioned in any known historical documents. A particularly complicated linguistic situation was once found along the tropical banks of the Mara˜n´on near Ja´en and Bagua, as is shown in an anonymous document of 1570 entitled Relaci´on de la tierra de Ja´en (Rivet 1934; Torero 1993a). The presence of the river and the moderate elevation of the Andes at this point constituted favourable conditions for trade, which apparently had attracted populations from different parts of the Amazon basin (including the Carib-speaking Patag´on). The incursions of the Jivaroan Aguaruna may have eliminated most of the small ethnic groups once living in this region, who disappeared without leaving a trace. The original language situation of the Andean highlands situated to the east of the Mara˜n´on is not clear. The people of the Chachapoyas region in the department of Amazonas probably had a separate language, usually referred to as Chacha (Taylor 1990a). It may have extended as far south as Bol´ıvar (formerly Cajamarquilla) in the de- partment of La Libertad. Still further south, in the province of Pataz (La Libertad), there is the possibility of the former presence of Hibito and Chol´on speakers. The province of Pataz harbours at least one Quechua-speaking community, La Maca˜n´ıa in the district of Urpay (Vink 1982). Along the coast of Peru, from the Trujillo region downward, at least one other non- Quechuan language was spoken. Rivet (1949) called it Quingnam on the basis of a mention by the Augustinian friar Calancha (1638). The view that Quingnam was a separate language (and not a dialect of Mochica, for instance) long remained open to doubt. It has lately received new support (Torero 1986). Judging from the absence of any reference to Quingnam in the vocabularies included in Bishop Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on’s pictographic encyclopaedia of the region (Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on 1985 [1782–90]), it appears that this language had already become lost from memory towards the end of the eighteenth century. It may have extended as far south as Lima, where it would have competed with the local Quechua and possibly with Aymaran. Until the twentieth century, the highlands of central Peru have been the undisputed domain of Quechua. It includes the Andean parts of the departments of Ancash, Hu´anuco, Pasco and Jun´ın. In the north of Ancash the boundary separating the province of Pallasca from the rest of the department marks the division between the former Culli (now Spanish-speaking) linguistic area and the area of Ancash Quechua. The high mountain valleys of the department of Lima, which carry their waters to the Pacific Ocean, have also been predominantly Quechua. Here, however, the influ- ence of Aymaran languages is visible as well, both through borrowing and as a result 174 3 The Inca Sphere of substratum. The northern branch of the Aymaran family is situated entirely in this area, in the province of Yauyos. There have been reports dating from the beginning of the twentieth century of Aymaran-speaking communities as far north as Canta in the valley of Chill´on (Hardman 1966). Sixteenth-century sources (Santo Tom´as 1560a, b) indicate that Quechua was the predominant language of the coastal plain of Lima, but some Aymaran toponymy is suggestive of a more complex language situation. This ob- servation also holds to a higher degree for the area of Huarochir´ı and San Dami´an de Checas further inland. This area was the home of an early colonial manuscript written in Quechua, attributed to the environment of the idolatry fighter Francisco de Avila(see sec- tion 3.2.11). It depicts a situation in which both a local form of Quechua and an Aymaran language seem to have coexisted. Cult terms, such as auquisna and chaycasna,6 referring to the celebrations dedicated to Pariacaca and Chaupi˜namca, the two main deities of the Huarochir´ıregion, and the names of mythical heroes, such as Collquiri and Tutayquiri, are either Aymaran, or have Aymaran endings. It suggests that an Aymaran language was used for purposes. At present, Spanish is the dominant language in the area of Huarochir´ı. The Hispanicising influence that radiates from the Lima agglomeration is cornering the native languages in remote areas of the department of that name, such as Cajatambo, Checras and Yauyos. The southern Andes of Peru, also known as the trapecio andino (‘Andean trapezium’), are widely recognised as the most authentically Indian region of Peru. Its Quechua- speaking area covers the Andean parts of the departments of Apurimac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cuzco, and (very marginally) Ica. The greater part of the Puno department and the province of S´anchez Cerro in Moquegua are also Quechua-speaking. Aymara is found in Puno (provinces of Huancan´e, Chucuito and Juli), Moquegua (province of Mariscal Nieto) and in the (province of Tarata). Historical sources and toponymy point toward the presence of Aymaran languages in most of the area of southern Peru that is now Quechua-speaking. In the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias of 1586 (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965) these languages are referred to as hahuasimi (Quechua hawa simi ‘outer languages’). The name suggests that this category included languages of different affiliations. However, lexical clues provided by the same source have permitted the identification of at least some of these languages as members of the Aymaran family (Torero 1970). In his description of the customs of different populations living in the former Inca em- pire, the chronicler Guaman Poma de Ayala (1615) indicates that an Aymaran language wasspoken not only in the region situated to the southeast of Cuzco (in the Collasuyo administrative quarter), but also southwest of the Inca capital (in the Cuntisuyo adminis- trative quarter). Among other areas, he may have referred to Collaguas,which coincides

6 Probably from Aymaran *awki-s(a)-na ‘of our father’ and *c.ˇayka-s(a)-na ‘of our mother’. 3.1 The languages and their distribution 175 with the higher reaches of the Colca river basin in the , once a stronghold of the Aymara nation, but entirely Quechuanised today. For a critical as- sessment of the sources from which our knowledge of the colonial language situation in southern Peru was derived, as well as the way they have been interpreted, see Mannheim (1991: 43–7, 249–50). In the southernmost part of the Peruvian Andes and on the coast there is again evidence of languages that were neither Quechuan nor Aymaran. Historically, the most widespread of these languages was Puquina. The classification of the Puquina language as a ‘general language’ during the early colonial period is somewhat surprising in view of its rapid extinction and the relatively poor state of its documentation. Concentrations of Puquina toponymy are found in the area between the town of Arequipa and the Peruvian–Chilean border, along the western and northern shores of Lake Titicaca and on some of its islands (Taquile, Amantan´ı). The peninsula of Capachica and the neighbouring village of Coata at the western extremity of the lake were among the last strongholds of Puquina. The so-called Coli language of the Moquegua region (Julien 1979) may have been a dialect of Puquina or a language related to it. Puquina contains quite a few Quechua borrowings, but it does not share the extreme lexical and typological coincidence of the Quechuan and Aymaran families. Its pronominal system is suggestive of a genetic connection with the Arawakan language family of the Amazonian lowlands. Some of the Puquina lexicon, or rather, that of one of its dialects (cf. Torero 1987), survives in the Callahuaya language, a professional language used by traditional healers of the area of Charazani in Bolivia. Alongside Puquina, there is the Uru–Chipaya or Uruquilla language family (Torero 1987, 1992). Following de Cr´equi-Montfort and Rivet (1925–7), several authors (Kingsley Noble 1965; Greenberg 1987) have failed to distinguish between the Uru– Chipaya family and Puquina (see section 1.7). This misunderstanding is partly due to the fact that one of the Uru–Chipaya-speaking groups, the Chipaya, have been known to refer to themselves as ‘Puquina’ or ‘Buquina’ (Olson 1964; Wachtel 1990: 607–8). However, there is unequivocal evidence that two separate families exist, for which we shall maintain the usual denominations Puquina and Uru–Chipaya. The Uru–Chipaya- speaking people stood apart, culturally and economically, from the sedentary Aymara population that surrounded them. They used to make a living off the lakes by fishing, hunting and processing totora-reed. The social and religious characteristics of the Uru– Chipaya people were those of outsiders with respect to Andean society, although the Chipaya adopted the agriculture-based way of life of their Aymara neighbours. So far, three Uru–Chipaya languages have been identified: Chipaya, spoken in an altiplano village near the Chilean border in the department of La Paz, Bolivia; Uru of Iruitu, spoken in a Bolivian community near the place where the Desaguadero river reaches the southern shore of Lake Titicaca; and Uru of Ch’imu, formerly spoken in a lake-shore township near Ichu, east of Puno (Peru). 176 3 The Inca Sphere

The Andean region of Bolivia is divided between Quechua and Aymara-speaking areas. The distribution of the two languages exhibits a complicated pattern because the linguistic boundary is not clear-cut everywhere (Hos´okawa 1980; Alb´o 1995). Aymara is the predominant language in most of the departments of La Paz and Oruro. The area of La Paz situated north of Lake Titicaca is shared by Quechua and Aymara speakers. A similar situation prevails in the protruding northern sector of the department of Potos´ı (norte de Potos´ı). There are also Aymara-speaking communities in the department of Cochabamba. Quechua has an even wider distribution in Bolivia than Aymara. It is spoken in most of Cochabamba, Potos´ı and Sucre, and in substantial areas of La Paz. The region of Tarija in the south has become Hispanicised. Virtually nothing is known about the languages that may have been spoken in the Bolivian highlands before Aymara and Quechua became the main languages there. The names of local ethnic groups, such as the L´ıpez and the Chicha, were preserved, but they have not been associated with any particular non-Quechuan or non-Aymaran lan- guage. The reason for our ignorance is that the Bolivian highlands probably became Aymaranised several centuries before the expansion of the Incas began. In some lo- cations, there were pockets of Puquina and Uruquilla (Uru–Chipaya) speakers outside their traditional habitat. They may have been the result of mitimaes-like migrations. However, the presence around 1600 of alleged Uruquilla speakers in the remote L´ıpez region in the western part of the department of Potos´ı (Bouysse-Cassagne 1975) points towards the survival of a local language which may or may not have been Uru–Chipaya. Both Ibarra Grasso (1958) and Loukotka (1968) mention the existence of Atacame˜no (Kunza) speakers in the southwestern corner of Bolivia, a claim that has not so far been corroborated. A former extension of the Atacame˜no language into the area of L´ıpez finds some support in the local toponymy. In northern Chile, parts of the coastal strip in the regions of Antofagasta and Tarapac´a were inhabited by the Chango people, who lived from the sea and, according to tradition, entertained a social relationship with the Uru on the altiplano (Wachtel 1990). Some words recorded by Bresson in 1875 from Chango established near the town of Paposo could easily be identified as pertaining to the Araucanian language of central and south- ern Chile (d’Ans 1977). Nothing is known about the original language of the Chango, who reportedly became extinct as a result of a tidal wave. It is possible that the Chango adopted the Araucanian language in their contacts with Chilean fishermen further south. The Chilean province of Antofagasta belonged to Bolivia until the Nitrate War of the 1870s. In its higher Andean parts, Quechua coexisted with the local Atacame˜no language, equally known as Kunza or Lican Antai. Atacame˜no was already mori- bund at the end of the nineteenth century. The language is almost certainly extinct now, but its memory is kept alive by the local descendants of its speakers. The 3.1 The languages and their distribution 177

Atacame˜no lexicon is relatively well documented, but a grammatical description of the language is sadly lacking. The extent to which Quechua is spoken in the region in question has not been fully investigated. There have also been rumours of Quechua speakers in the Chilean–Argentinian border region much further south (province of Atacama). Like most of the Bolivian highlands, northwestern Argentina adopted the Quechua language. It survives in two distinct non-contiguous areas: the lowland province of Santiago del Estero and the western, cordilleran part of the provinces of Jujuy and (probably) Salta. According to de Granda (1993), the autochtonous population of Jujuy and Salta became fully Hispanicised. He attributes the presence of Quechua speakers in that area to secondary migrations from Bolivia. Santiague˜no Quechua is now the most thriving Quechua dialect in Argentina. Its survival is an interesting case, because the province of Santiago del Estero never seems to have been dominated by the Incas. It appears that Spanish colonial presence in the Santiago region was initially represented by Quechua-speaking Indians originally from different parts of the former empire (Bravo 1993). For a while, Quechua was used throughout the northwest of Argentina, in the present-day provinces of Catamarca, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero and Tucum´an, where it partly replaced the local languages Kak´an and Tonocot´e.InCatamarca and La Rioja, a Quechua dialect (locally called Quichua) survived at least until the first decades of the twentieth century (Nardi 1962), and may still be spoken locally. In central Argentina, Quechua influence extended as far south as C´ordoba during the colonial period. The presence of the pre-Quechuan languages of northwestern Argentina is more clearly delineated than that of Bolivia. Aymara speakers are mentioned by most authors dealing with the language situation in the departments of Jujuy and Salta (e.g. Klein 1985: 706). However, since no exact locations are indicated, one may ask the ques- tion whether the alleged Aymara speakers are indigenous to the area. In the Andean region of northwestern Argentina, Diaguita (Kak´an)was probably the non-Quechuan language with the widest extension. The Diaguita linguistic area, which included parts of Catamarca, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero and Tucum´an also extended into northern Chile, filling the intermediate area between the oases of the Atacama desert and the Araucanian domain. Nevertheless, Spanish explorers found considerable lin- guistic variety on their journey southward through northern Chile. They also report that, as soon as the area of present-day Santiago in central Chile was reached, the natives all spoke one language: Araucanian. The Diaguita language did not cover all of what is now northwestern Argentina. The influence of Atacame˜no extended onto the high plain (puna)ofwestern Jujuy and Salta. The valley of Humahuaca in the centre of probably had its own language. In the provinces of Tucum´an and Santiago del Estero the Diaguita shared the 178 3 The Inca Sphere area with the Tonocot´e,who were under pressure from the nomadic Lule.Asitappears, Lule was remotely related to the of the basin further east, now remembered by only a handful of speakers in the province of Chaco (Lozano 1977). The native population of Santiago del Estero was referred to as the Jur´ı,anethnic group whose linguistic affiliation has not been determined. Probably, it was a cover term for both the Lule and the Tonocot´e, as the distinction between these groups was gradually lost in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The phonological substratum that can be discerned in Santiague˜no Quechua may be attributed to the Diaguita (Nardi 1979), but it is also reminiscent of the Guaicuruan languages and Vilela for its uvular obstruents. A section about the distribution of the languages of the central Andes cannot be con- cluded without mentioning the one language that is difficult to locate on a conventional language map. The Inca rulers and the members of their extended family are said to have used a private or secret language (lengua particular)towhich the subjects of their empire had no access. Its existence is mentioned by Garcilaso de la Vega (1609) and Cobo (1653), among others. Cerr´on-Palomino (1998) analyses a number of lexical items reported by Garcilaso to belong to this language. They are mainly personal names, titles and place names, for which Garcilaso could find no ready explanation within his native Quechua. In one case Garcilaso de la Vega (Book 2, chapter 11) offers a translation when he says that Cuzco (qusqu), the name of the Inca capital, meant ‘navel of the earth’ in the secret Inca language (although this explanation is not generally accepted). In connec- tion with most of Garcilaso’s examples Cerr´on-Palomino concludes that a Quechua or Aymara etymology remains the most likely option. Cobo’s contribution to the problem (Book 12, chapter 3) is significant because he transmits the words of a direct descendant of the Inca family, who reports that the secret language of the Inca was spoken by the Indians of Pacaritambo, the mythical place of origin of the Inca clan west of Cuzco (cf. Cerr´on-Palomino 1998: 417–18). There have been many efforts to connect the language of the Incas with Quechua, or with Aymara, or with Puquina, in spite of the fact that all three languages were widely used in the empire, and none of them seemed fit to act as a secret language. Of course, the secret language may have been a divergent dialect of one of these languages. The publication of a complete version of the chronicle of Juan de Betanzos (1551 [1987]) has provided new fuel to the discussion. It contains the text (with a translation) of an Inca song commemorating a victory of the Incas over the Sora people in the southern part of the present-day . This very short and cryptic text has been interpreted as Puquina by Szemi´nski (1990), as Aymaran by Torero (1994a), and as Aymaran with Puquina elements by Cerr´on-Palomino (1998). The latter author refers to a statement by the chronicler Mur´ua (1613) that the secret language of the Incas was neither Quechua nor Aymara. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 179

3.2 The Quechuan language family In the late 1520s, when reconnoitring the coast of Ecuador and northern Peru, Francisco Pizarro and his men set foot in the Inca city of T´umbez. The Spaniards, whom the Indians called ‘’ (wiraquˇca) after one of their principal gods, were pleased to find a relatively easy language that could serve as a means of communication almost everywhere in the new land they had decided to penetrate. Betanzos, who was one of the first Spaniards to write about the events accompanying the destruction of the Inca dynasty, reports that local natives, mostly Tall´an Indians, were trained in Spanish during those first years in order to serve as interpreters for the newly discovered language (Betanzos 1987: 269). Most notorious among them, a certain Felipillo, became instrumental in the process and subsequent execution of the Inca Atahuallpa, reportedly because he had taken an interest in one of the emperor’s wives and feared the consequences of that relationship (Hemming 1973: 82, 558; Betanzos 1987: 284–5). At first, the language of the Inca administration was referred to as the ‘General Language of the Inca’ (la lengua general del Inga). The Santo Tom´as grammar of 1560 (see section 3.2.4) is said to contain the first mention of the name Quechua in print (Cerr´on-Palomino 1987a: 32). There are no indications that the term was already in use before the Spanish invasion, but neither is there any reason to assume that Santo Tom´as would have been the inventor of it. Actually, he wrote Quichua,aspelling that may have reflected the pronunciation used in the Lima region. The name Quechua was possibly derived from a native term referring to the temperate altitude zone roughly situated between 2,500 and 3,500 metres and to its inhabitants (*qiˇc. wa, modern Cuzco Quechua qhiswa).7 The initial consonant q of this word, a uvular stop or fricative, triggers the lowering of the adjacent high vowel i to a mid [e]. Hence Quechua instead of Quichua.Atpresent, the name of the language is no longer associated with the climatic term (if ever it was). In most Quechua dialects the language is referred to as kiˇcwa,whereas Spanish speakers say either Quechua [k´eˇcuwa], in Peru and Bolivia, or Quichua [k´ıˇcuwa], in Ecuador and Argentina. Another term for the Quechua language which seems to have emerged during the colonial epoch is runa simi ‘language of man/people’ (with as dialectal variants nunasimi ˇ in central Peru and runasimi ˇ in Ecuador). Further discussion of the origin of the names for the Quechua language can be found in Cerr´on-Palomino (1987a: 31–7) and in Mannheim (1991: 6–9). Modern denominations meant to designate specific Quechua dialects are Huanca for the dialects of the Huancayo– area in the department of Jun´ın in central Peru, Inga

7 There is an alternative explanation. The chronicler Cieza de Le´on (1553: Part I, chapter 90) informs us about an ethnic group called the Quichua,who were established in the present-day department of Apurimac. Garcilaso de la Vega (1609: Book III, chapters 11 and 12) refers to them as Quechua and situates them in the northeastern part of Apurimac. Neighbours of the Quichua/Quechua were the Aimara,who probably gave their name to the Aymara language. 180 3 The Inca Sphere or Ingano for the dialect of Caquet´a and Nari˜no in Colombia, and Cuzco for the dialect of Santiago del Estero in Argentina8.InEcuador we also find ingasimi ˇ ‘Inca language’ and yangasimi ˇ ‘useless language’. Most other dialects are referred to in the linguistic literature by means of a geographic epithet, such as the name of a town, a province or a country (Cuzco Quechua, Ancash Quechua, Bolivian Quechua, etc.). In the present-day Andean society it is a common practice to refer to speakers of the different Quechua dialects as if they were all speakers of the same language. The picture of the complex Quechua dialect situation that emerged from system- atic field research conducted in the course of the twentieth century was primarily a static one. The dialects were identified with agrarian regions, provinces or even single communities. They were linked to a clear and specific geographic context. However authentic such a geographic constellation may have seemed, it was itself the product of poorly documented demographic developments, migrations, language shift, failed attempts at linguistic unification and centrifugal tendencies intended to reinforce local identity. Little is known about the antiquity of the events that led to the existence of the modern Quechua dialects. Reconstructed chronologies of phonological changes are mostly relative, seldom absolute. Only a relatively well-documented dialect, such as Cuzco Quechua, can be followed in its historical development over the last 450 years (see Mannheim 1991).

3.2.1 The Quechua homeland Foralong time linguists and historians were misled in their search for the original homeland of Quechua. Until the 1960s, it was usual to associate the spread of the Quechua language with the military expansion of the Incas. The Quechua homeland was thought to have been situated in the immediate neighbourhood of the Inca capital Cuzco, a view reflected in the work of Mason (1950), Rowe (1950b), McQuown (1955) and Loukotka (1968). McQuown lists the names of scores of undocumented languages (mostly names of towns or traditional administrative divisions) intended to fill the alleged vacuum of what was to become the Quechua linguistic domain. The language map accompanying Loukotka’s classification of the languages of South America (Loukotka 1968) shows the Quechua homeland as a small patch of land extending westward from Cuzco. The remainder of the Quechua-speaking areas, considered to be a linguistic terra incognita, are indicated in white. The above view was motivated, in particular, by statements of early colonial chroni- clers emphasising the situation of prevailing multilingualism in the former Inca empire. Garcilaso de la Vega (1609: Book 7, chapter 3) explicitly refers to Quechua as the court language of Cuzco, which at the time of the Inca rulers was used as a general

8 The speakers of Santiago del Estero (Santiague˜no) Quechua are called cuzqueros. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 181 language ‘from Quito to the kingdoms of Chile and Tucum´an’. According to Garcilaso, the Incas imposed it on their subjects, who originally spoke a multitude of languages (‘each province has its own language different from the others’). The impressions of the Spanish and indigenous chroniclers, who were witnesses of before it became radically reorganised as a result of colonial rule, are not to be dismissed lightly. The issue is how to interpret their statements. The alleged multilingualism can bear on the coexistence of several languages, but also on the dialectal fragmentation within a language. In the case of the former Inca empire it seems to point at the internal frag- mentation of Quechuan and Aymaran, alongside the existence of several unrelated local languages. Even during the colonial period there was a certain awareness of the dialectal dif- ferences within the Quechua linguistic domain. Some of it is already reflected in Santo Tomas’s ´ grammar and dictionary of 1560 (see section 3.2.4). In 1571 Pedro Pizarro (1986: 75) wrote that the language spoken by the Xauxas and Guancas (the modern Huanca dialects of Jauja and Huancayo) differed from standard general Quechua ‘as does the language of the Portuguese from that of the Castilians’ (cf. Torero 1974: 144). In 1700 Juan de Figueredo published a vocabulary of what he called the Chinchaisuyo language, a sort of collective term for the Quechua dialects of central and northern Peru. The name Chinchaisuyo referred to the northern administrative quarter of the Inca empire. The importance of the central and northern Peruvian Quechua dialects for the recon- struction of the linguistic past of the central Andes became apparent after the publication of an article by Ferrario (1956). Soon, the Quechua dialect situation became a major topic of interest for linguists concerned with that language. Two pioneering studies (Parker 1963; Torero 1964) provided a classification of the principal varieties of Quechua on the basis of genetic principles. What emerged was a two-fold division of the Quechua dialect complex, reflecting a case of genetic branching of much greater antiquity than the Inca expansion. Central Peru, particularly the valleys carrying the headwaters of the Andean rivers on the Pacific side of the continental divide in the present-day department of Lima, turned out to exhibit the greatest dialectal complexity. On this basis, Torero (1970: 248) identified the coast and sierra of central Peru as the homeland of Proto- Quechua. Initially, he dated the first split and expansion of Quechuan some time before AD 880 on lexico-statistic grounds. In Torero (1984: 382–3), however, he considered an earlier period for the first expansion of Quechuan, during the first half of the first millennium, as more realistic. The traditional indigenista ideology advocated by the Cuzco Language Academy (Academia de la lengua quechua) considers the Cuzco variety of Quechua as the pure and legitimate heir of the Inca language (quechua leg´ıtimo). In that perspective, the other Quechua dialects are thought to be ‘degenerate’ or ‘mixed with Spanish’, a view that has 182 3 The Inca Sphere its roots in the colonial period. Since Cuzco was the home of many descendants of the Inca nobility, it acted as a stronghold of Inca tradition opposed to the growing cultural influence emanating from Lima, the Ciudad de los Reyes ‘City of the Magi’, the seat of the Spanish viceroy. Not surprisingly, Cuzco Quechua gradually became a symbol of Andean identity, as the Quechua standard language or lengua general (see section 3.2.2) fell into disuse. The alleged superiority of Cuzco Quechua is one of the factors that seriously hampered the identification of the Quechua homeland. Alternative hypotheses for an original Quechua homeland in the eastern forest areas were proposed by Lathrap (1970: 176–9) and by Stark (1985a). Neither one of these proposals has the potential of explaining the complex dialect situation that exists in the Quechua-speaking regions of the Peruvian Andes. For a more detailed discussion see Hartmann (1979: 287–9) and Cerr´on-Palomino (1987a: 336–41).

3.2.2 Historical overview of the colonial period The language of the Inca administration at the arrival of the Spaniards was a variety of Quechua. Little is known about the exact nature of the Inca language and its degree of unification. One of its characteristics appears to have been the voicing of stops after nasals. This is attested by the shape of some of the earliest loan words which found their way from Quechua into Spanish, e.g. c´ondor ‘condor’, ‘halting-place’, ‘inn’, Inga ‘Inca’ and huaranga ‘a thousand men (administrative unit)’. Voicing of this sort is now mainly found in Colombia, in Ecuador and in the northern Peruvian Quechua dialects of Cajamarca, Chachapoyas (Amazonas), Ferre˜nafe (Lambayeque) and Lamas (San Mart´ın). Voicing of stops after nasals was also a feature of the Quechua spoken in the sixteenth century on the central coast of Peru near Lima (cf. Cerr´on-Palomino 1990). The latter may have been fully or nearly identical to the Inca general language. Shortly after the Spanish authority in Peru became firmly established, a debate arose about whether the indigenous languages constituted acceptable tools for evangelisation. Although the Indian population had diminished severely as a result of civil war and epidemics, the Spaniards in Peru, still no more than a handful, were overwhelmingly outnumbered. There was no question of using Spanish in contacts with the Indians, a language which only very few of them could understand. Catholic priests and members of religious congregations in the newly conquered territories, many of whom knew Quechua well, spoke strongly in favour of using Quechua in the propagation of the Catholic faith. Their pleadings convinced the Spanish king Philip II (cf. Rivarola 1990: 134). An important landmark in the history of Quechua was the Third Lima Council (Tercer Concilio Limense)of1583, where it was decided to translate the religious texts referred to as Doctrina christiana y catecismo para instrucci´on de los indios (‘Christian doctrine and catechism for the instruction of the Indians’) into Quechua and Aymara (Ricardo 3.2 The Quechuan language family 183

1584). A committee in charge of the translation selected the Quechua orthography and vocabulary to be used. It created a new standardised form of Quechua, in which certain phonetic complications of the southern Peruvian dialects were disregarded in order to gain a wider acceptance (Mannheim 1991: 142). As a result, the difference between the velar and uvular stops was ignored, a procedure which is in line with the loss of that distinction in the Ecuadorian branch of Quechua and in some of the northern Peruvian dialects. The resulting standard language appears to have been in use well into the seventeenth century (Itier 1991). Gradually, however, the use of this Quechua lengua general as a countrywide vehicle of communication became obsolete. Cuzco Quechua emerged as the most successful local variety. It is exemplified by a substantial dramatic literature (see section 3.2.11). The Quechua renaissance was supported mainly by the descendants of the Inca nobility, established in the Cuzco region, and by the local clergy. It received a fatal blow at the end of the colonial period, in 1780–81, when Jos´e Gabriel Tupac Amaru, an alleged descendant of the Inca dynasty, and other Indian leaders rose against the Spaniards. The suppression of the rebellion and the execution of its leaders was followed by an active policy directed against the position of Quechua and other Indian languages from the side of the colonial rulers (Mannheim 1991: 74–6). The abolition of Quechua official use at the end of the eighteenth century was the result partly of efforts to suppress upcoming nationalist sentiments, and partly of the centralist ideology favoured by the Bourbon administration in Madrid. Its representatives were reluctant to maintain traditional privileges and customs. National independence of the Andean republics soon followed, but it was brought about by a military campaign headed by two non-Indian leaders, Sim´on Bol´ıvar and Jos´edeSan Mart´ın (although the latter had partly Indian roots). The Indian population, having lost the initiative and its leadership thirty years earlier, played practically no part in the independence movement and showed itself unable to take advantage of it. Whatever protection the Indians and their culture may have received from the Spanish colonial system, most of it was lost once the Andean nations were independent. The role of Quechua as a means of communication fell back to local purposes, its prestige lower than it had ever been before. In their national aspirations, the independent followed the European model. Spanish became the sole official language and a cornerstone of national identity and cohesion. In many areas Quechua began to give way to Spanish. There was no room any longer for either linguistic or cultural diversity. However, a reappraisal of native values was to be achieved gradually during the twentieth century (see section 3.2.12).

3.2.3 Dialect situation As a result of descriptive work carried out since the late 1960s, dialectal diversity within the Quechua linguistic domain is particularly well documented. It is a field of great 184 3 The Inca Sphere

IMBABURA COLOMBIA Quito COTOPAXI Salasaca ECUADOR CHIMBORAZO

CAÑAR

Cuenca

TUMBEZ Tumbez Saraguro

S

A

PIURA N

O Z LORETO Piura A C M A A JA Cañaris MChachapoyas A R LAMBAYEQUE C Lamas A Chiclayo Cajamarca SAN MARTÍN BRAZIL PERU LA LIBERTAD Trujillo Pallasca

ANCASH HUÁNUCO UCAYALI Huánuco Cajatambo PASCO Paccho San Pedro de Cajas Ta r m a Quechua I: Pacaraos JUNÍN LIMA Jauja Concepción MADRE DE DIOS Huancayo Huaylas-Conchucos Lima Chongos Bajo Laraos A C Alto Pativilca– I Pto. Maldonado L Huancavelica C Alto Marañón– Yauyos E U Z A V Ayacucho C Alto Huallaga A O

I

C

Ya r u N A Cuzco A Y V

U A

Jauja-Huanca Ica H C APURIMAC I U ICA C

Huangáscar-Topará L H PUNO Apolo O

O Coata Quechua IIA: B AREQUIPA Ferreñafe (Cañaris) Puno A Arequipa U Cajamarca G E Lincha U Q O Moquegua M TACNA Quechua IIC: Tacna Quechua IIB: Ayacucho Ecuadorian Quechua (Highlands and Oriente) Cuzco Chachapoyas Collao (Puno) CHILE San Martín (Lamas) Northern Bolivian (Apolo)

Map 5 Approximate distribution of Quechua dialects in Peru and adjacent areas 3.2 The Quechuan language family 185 theoretical interest, due to the complex character of the phonological and morphological facts and the often subtle formal and semantic shifts that separate the numerous dialects. Dialect differences appear to function as markers of local or regional identity. From a genetic and classificatory point of view, the Quechua dialects must be divided into two main branches. One of them has been termed Quechua B (in Parker 1963), Quechua I (in Torero 1964), or Central Quechua (Mannheim 1985a, Landerman 1994). It occupies a compact and continuous area in the central Peruvian highlands, including the Andean parts of the departments of Ancash, Hu´anuco, Jun´ın and Pasco (with the exception of the province of Pallasca in northern Ancash), some of the Andean parts of the department of Lima and a few districts in the departments of Huancavelica, Ica and La Libertad. Quechua B or I constitutes a heavily fragmented dialect complex with a number of clear common features. A more refined subdivision into five subgroups is proposed in Torero (1974). These subgroups are the following: a. Huaylas–Conchucos consists of the Quechua-speaking areas of Ancash, except for the province of Bolognesi in the south; it also includes the provinces of Mara˜n´on and Huamal´ıes in the north of the department of Hu´anuco and a small Quechua-speaking pocket near Urpay in the depart- ment of La Libertad. b. Alto Pativilca–Alto Mara˜n´on–Alto Huallaga includes the remainder of the Quechua-speaking area of the department of Hu´anuco; the province of Bolognesi in Ancash; and a part of the province of Cajatambo, as well as the district of Ambar (province of Huaura), both in the department of Lima. c. Yaru includes the Andean sector of the department of Pasco; the northern sector of the Quechua-speaking area in the department of Jun´ın (provinces of Jun´ın, Yauli and Tarma); parts of the provinces of Cajatambo, Huaura and Oy´on in the department of Lima; the districts Alis and Tomas in the province of Yauyos, also in the department of Lima. d. Jauja–Huanca includes the remainder of the Quechua-speaking area of Jun´ın; and the district of Cacra in the province of Yauyos (Lima). e. Huang´ascar–Topar´a includes the districts of Huang´ascar, Chocos and Az´angaro in the province of Yauyos (Lima); the district Chav´ın de Topar´a in the province of Chincha (Ica); the districts of Tantar´a, Aurahu´a and Arma in the province of Castrovirreyna (Huancavelica). The second branch, Quechua A or II, has a much wider extension and comprises all the remaining varieties of Quechua located both to the north and to the south of the central Peruvian dialect area. It also includes the Quechua dialects spoken in the Amazonian lowlands to the east of the Andean cordilleras and, most probably, the Quechua dialect(s) 186 3 The Inca Sphere once spoken on the central Peruvian coast between Huaura and Ca˜nete. The different ‘general languages’ all belonged to this group. Speaking in general terms, the twofold classifications originally proposed by Parker and Torero are almost identical. However, Torero’s classification includes a further subdivision of Quechua II into the three subgroups Quechua IIA, Quechua IIB and Quechua IIC.9 Although very closely related, both Quechua IIB and Quechua IIC ex- hibit distinct characteristics that make it possible to decide whether a particular dialect is to be included or not in either subgroup. The case of Quechua IIA is more problem- atic. It was meant to include two dialect areas in northern Peru in the departments of Cajamarca (provinces of Cajamarca and Bambamarca) and Lambayeque (mainly in the districts of Ca˜naris and Incahuasi in the cordilleran sector of the province of Ferre˜nafe), as well as a number of village dialects in the department of Lima in central Peru. These are the dialects of Laraos, Lincha, Made´an and Vi˜nac in the province of Yauyos, the southeasternmost part of the department of Lima, and, further north, the dialect spoken in the community of Pacaraos in the higher reaches of the Chancay river valley (province of Huaral). The dialects that were assigned to Quechua IIA occupy an intermediate position between Quechua I and the rest of Quechua II. Taylor (1979a) gives it the status of a separate division, calling it Quechua III. The difficulty with the classificatory status of Quechua IIA is that it does not constitute a unity. The northern dialects of Cajamarca and Ferre˜nafe share characteristics of both Quechua IIB and Quechua I. The dialects of Yauyos hold a similar position between Quechua IIC and Quechua I. Pacaraos has so much in common with the Quechua I dialects, by which it is partly surrounded, that some authors prefer to associate it with Quechua I (Parker 1969d: 191–2). Alternatively, it could be considered as a separate branch of the Quechuan family on a par with Quechua I and II. The resemblances between Pacaraos Quechua and Quechua II, which motivated its initial classification as a Quechua IIA dialect, should be attributed to morphological and lexical conservatism rather than to its alleged membership of that group (cf. Adelaar 1984). Quechua IIB includes the dialects of the Ecuadorian highlands and oriente (the east- ern lowlands); the Colombian Quechua dialect usually called Inga or Ingano (Caquet´a, Nari˜no, Putumayo); the dialects spoken in the Peruvian in the Amazonian lowlands (which are, in fact, extensions of the varieties spoken in the Amazonian region of Ecuador); the Lamista dialect spoken in the area of Lamas (depart- ment of San Mart´ın, Peru); and that of Chachapoyas and Luya (department of Amazonas,

9 Henceforth, we shall refer to the dialect branches of the Quechua family by means of the termi- nology of Torero’s classification (Quechua I, II), because it allows for a further subdivision of the Quechua II branch. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 187

Peru). Some extinct varieties are also assignable to Quechua IIB: both the ‘coastal’ dialect described by Santo Tom´as in 1560 and the variety of Quechua used in the aforementioned manuscript from Huarochir´ı (of 1608) have lexical and morphological characteristics that are strongly suggestive of a Quechua IIB affiliation. Ecuadorian and Colombian Quechua have undergone a profound transformation affecting much of the complex morphology inherited from Proto-Quechua, which has been preserved in the more con- servative dialects of Peru and Bolivia. Most conspicuous for this process are the loss of the personal reference markers indicating possession with substantives and of those specifying the patient in verbs. The relatively recent character of the morphological transformation that took place in the Ecuadorian–Columbian branch of Quechua IIB can be deduced from the fact that not all varieties belonging to it were affected in an equally radical way. An example of such conservatism is the dialect spoken along the Pastaza river in the department of Loreto in Peru (Landerman 1973). Quechua IIC presently includes all the dialects situated to the southeast of a linguistic boundary which coincides with the administrative division between the departments of Jun´ın and Huancavelica in central Peru. It comprises the best-known and most pres- tigious dialects outside Ecuador, which are used by substantial numbers of speakers: Ayacucho Quechua, Cuzco Quechua and Bolivian Quechua. The Argentinian dialect of Santiago del Estero and the extinct variety of Catamarca and La Rioja in the same country also belong to the Quechua IIC branch. Ayacucho Quechua covers the Andean parts of the departments of Ayacucho and Huancavelica, as well as the western and northwestern sections of Apurimac (provinces of Andahuaylas and Chincheros) and Arequipa (provinces of Caravel´ı, Condesuyos and La Uni´on). Cuzco Quechua includes the Andean regions of the departments of Cuzco, as well as parts of Apurimac (provinces of Abancay, Antabamba, Cotabambas, Grau and Aymaraes), Arequipa (provinces of Arequipa, Castilla, Caylloma and Condesuyos), Moquegua (province of S´anchez Cerro) and Puno (provinces of Az´angaro, Carabaya, Huancan´e, Lampa, Melgar, Puno, Sandia, San Antonio de Putina and San Rom´an).10 The traditional division between Ayacucho Quechua and Cuzco Quechua has to do with the existence of glottalised (ejective) and aspirated consonants, which do occur in the latter but not in the former. However, the Cuzco Quechua dialect area is far from homogeneous. The dialectal variants of Arequipa and Puno exhibit cases of lexical and morphological borrowing from Aymara not found in the Cuzco variant. The central Apurimac variant of Cuzco Quechua (provinces of Abancay, Antabamba and Aymaraes) maintains several phonological and lexical features connecting it to Ayacucho Quechua (Landerman 1994; Chirinos Rivera 1998).

10 The data concerning the distribution by provinces of Ayacucho and Cuzco Quechua in Apurimac, Arequipa and Puno are mainly from Chirinos Rivera (1998), who also recognises a further division between Cuzco and Collavino (Puno) Quechua. 188 3 The Inca Sphere

Bolivian Quechua is spoken in the Bolivian highlands (departments of Cochabamba, Sucre and Potos´ı, parts of Oruro and most of La Paz north of Lake Titicaca), and in ad- jacent areas of Argentina (provinces of Jujuy and Salta). Together with Cuzco Quechua, it is often referred to as a single Cuzco–Bolivian dialect because both varieties share the contrast of plain, glottalised and aspirated stops and affricates. From a morphological point of view, however, Bolivian Quechua is very different from Cuzco Quechua. It has been reported that the Quechua spoken on the northern Andean slopes in the department of La Paz is phonologically more conservative than both Cuzco Quechua and the rest of Bolivian Quechua (Stark 1985b). Hence, a distinction is made between a northern and a southern Bolivian variant. Larra´ın Barros (1991) mentions the presence of Quechua speakers in the Chilean province of Antofagasta, in the Atacama desert oases of Ayquina, Cupo, Toconce and Turi. There are no specific data on this dialect, but it is likely to be an extension of the Bolivian variety of Quechua. The Quechua-speaking area of Santiago del Estero in Argentina is not contiguous with Bolivian Quechua. It is mainly concentrated in the hot lowlands bordering the banks of the Salado river. The verbal morphology of Santiague˜no Quechua shares a number of very specific innovations with Bolivian Quechua. Phonologically, however, Santiague˜no Quechua is rather different from Bolivian Quechua. Unlike the latter, it lacks glottalised and aspirated consonants. It is reminiscent of the northern Peruvian dialects because it preserves a remnant of the s–sˇ distinction, which otherwise is not found in Quechua IIC (see section 3.2.5). The characteristics of Santiague˜no Quechua were almost certainly derived from different dialectal sources (cf. Adelaar 1995b). The Quechua dialects are best viewed as a ‘dialect chain’ in the definition provided by Kaufman (1990). However, the opposition between the two main groups Quechua I and Quechua II is more fundamental. It seems to reflect an initial split at the level of Proto-Quechua. The distinction between the two groups primarily rests on lexi- cal and morphological facts. Phonological diversity is rampant in both groups, and much of it can only be interpreted as a result of developments posterior to the initial split. Although the lexical differences between Quechua I and Quechua II are quite real, their distribution seldom reflects a clear-cut division between the two groups. For instance, the Quechua II verb root for ‘to go’ ri- corresponds to Quechua I aywa-. However, Quechua I Huanca, which borders on Quechua IIC Ayacucho, has li-, a reflex of *ri-. It may be the result of dialect interference, but it can also be explained by assuming an innovative substitution of aywa- for *ri- that would have occurred in Quechua I without reaching the outlying Huanca area.11

11 The verb aywa-isreminiscent of Aymara aywi- ‘to go (several)’. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 189

Morphological arguments come the closest to providing unequivocal criteria for as- signing a dialect to either one of the two subgroups. Morphological criteria tend to occur in bundles, although there is never a full coincidence. Best known among them is the shape of the first-person marker for subject and possessor. It is -y (nominal and verbal) or -ni (exclusively verbal) in most of Quechua II; e.g. waska-y ‘my rope’, wata-y-man ‘I could tie (it)’, wata-ni ‘I tie (it)’. In Quechua I, it is marked both on verbs and on nouns by the lengthening of the preceding vowel (symbolised as -:); e.g. waska-: ‘my rope’, wata-:-man ‘I could tie (it)’, wata-: ‘I tie (it)’. The dialect of Pacaraos (cf. section 3.2.9) has its own distinctive first-person marker -´y.Itconsists of a segment -y that attracts stress to the preceding vowel when it occurs in word-final position. Landerman (1978) reports that some transitional Quechua IIA dialects, such as Lincha, combine the markers -´y (for nouns) and -ni (for verbs).12 Some further morphological criteria that can contribute to distinguishing between Quechua I (QI) and Quechua II (QII) are: a. The shape of the marker referring to identical subjects in the switch- reference system (cf. section 3.2.6) is -r (or its reflex) in Quechua I. It is -spaˇ (or its reflex) in Quechua II. (QI) has both forms, -r being used alone and -spaˇ with optional personal reference markers (Weber 1989). Pacaraos Quechua (cf. section 3.2.9) has -spaˇ , although its morphology follows Quechua I in most other respects. b. The shape of the locative case marker is -pi (or its reflex) in most of Quechua II. It is -ˇc. aw13 (or its reflex) in Quechua I and in Pacaraos Quechua. The element c.ˇaw is obviously related to the root *ˇc. awpi ‘mid- dle’, ‘centre’, of which reflexes are found in both dialect branches. It is also found in Quechua II punˇcaw (< *punˇc. aw) ‘day’ (cf. QI Huanca pun ‘day’, QI northern Jun´ın hukpun ‘the other day’). c. The shape of the ablative case marker is -manta (or its reflex) in most of Quechua II. In Quechua I, we either find -pita,orreflexes of *-piq(ta). Pacaraos Quechua has both -piq and -piqta in free variation. d. The shape of the first-person patient marker in verbs is -wa-inmost of Quechua II. It is -ma(:)- in Quechua I and in some Quechua IIA dialects (Ferre˜nafe, Pacaraos). e. In most Quechua II dialects, the verbal and nominal personal reference markers, which are used for subject, object and possessor, are pluralised

12 There are several conflicting hypotheses concerning the reconstruction of the Proto-Quechua first-person marker (Torero 1964; Proulx 1969; Landerman 1978; Cerr´on-Palomino 1979; Taylor 1979a; Adelaar 1984). 13 The symbol c.ˇ refers to a voiceless retroflex affricate; its non-retroflex alveo-palatal counterpart is indicated as cˇ (see section 3.2.5). 190 3 The Inca Sphere

externally, by means of suffixes that must follow these markers. Quechua I and Pacaraos lack a morphological means to indicate plurality of possessor with substantives. Plurality of subject in verbs (or, occasionally, plurality of object) is indicated internally, by means of suffixes that have their lo- cus between the verb root and the personal reference markers. In several dialects the choice of plural markers depends on their co-occurrence with aspect markers. Some combinations of aspect and plural are indicated by fused (portmanteau) markers. f. Quechua I dialects and Pacaraos Quechua have productive verbal deriva- tional suffixes that mark the direction of a movement, viz. -rku- ‘upward movement’ and -rpu- ‘downward movement’. A fossilised -rqu- (or its reflex) is found both in Quechua I and Quechua II dialects with a recon- structed meaning ‘outward movement’ (e.g. in QI yarqu- ‘to leave’, QI/II hurqu- ‘to take out’). Likewise, the meaning of *-yku- has been recon- structed as ‘inward movement’. Reflexes of *-rqu- and *-yku- are found throughout the Quechua dialects, but with modified meanings. g. Many Quechua dialects distinguish two past tenses. Whereas one refers to any event in the past, the other has the connotation of surprise or previous lack of knowledge on the part of the speaker. It is marked by reflexes of *-nyaq in Quechua I and in Pacaraos, and by reflexes of *-ˇsqa in most of Quechua II (see further section 3.2.6). h. The one important phonological distinction that separates Quechua I (and Pacaraos) from Quechua II is the treatment of a sequence of low vowels separated by a palatal glide, viz. *-aya-. It has been retained in most of Quechua II, whereas in the former dialects it became -a:-. As a result, a phonemic length distinction exists in the Quechua I dialects which has ac- quired further applications, including cases of long high vowels (-i:-, -u:-). It has been assumed that Proto-Quechua had embryonic vowel quantity in lexical roots, such as pu:ka- ‘to blow’, and in the first-person marker (Torero 1964). However, if it is true – as seems to be the case – that the QI first-person marker (-a:, -i:, -u:) originated from stressed word-final *-´ay, *-´ıy, *-´uy (as in present-day Pacaraos Quechua), this would further reduce the number of long vowels to be reconstructed for Proto-Quechua (Adelaar 1984).14 The existence of distinctive vowel length is now the most salient characteristic of Quechua I as opposed to Quechua IIB and Quechua IIC, where it does not occur.

14 It should be emphasised that the reconstruction proposed here is by no means generally accepted. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 191

Although the validity of the initial subdivision of the Quechuan family into two main branches has been questioned on phonological grounds (Mannheim 1991: 176), it will be clear from the above that the morphological and lexical evidence favouring such adivision is abundant. Nevertheless, it may not be possible to accommodate all the existing Quechua dialects into either one of the two branches.

3.2.4 Quechua studies Quechua is among the Amerindian languages that have received major scholarly attention from the beginning of Spanish rule in Peru until the present century (see also chapter 1). In the context of the present work we can do no more than highlight some of the most important writings on Quechua. For a survey of the older literature on Quechua one can consult Rivet and de Cr´equi-Montfort’s extensive Bibliographie des langues aymar´aet kiˇcua (1951–6). Spanish clerical grammarians established the tradition of Quechua studies. However impressive their pioneering work may have been from the start, its value has greatly increased now that modern field data on Quechua have become available. Language is the one element in Andean culture that has remained relatively stable. The confrontation of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century grammars and dictionaries with phonologically and semantically more accurate modern material permits a much more precise interpretation than hitherto possible. The Dominican Domingo de Santo Tom´as was among the leading figures of the first decades of the Spanish administration. He often sided with the Indians in cases of mistreatment and oppression by European colonists, and provided Las Casas with material for his famous polemics (Duviols 1971: 88). Santo Tom´as’s grammar and lexicon of the general language of Peru (1560a, b) provide a description of Quechua older than that of many European languages. From a dialect-geographic point of view, Santo Tomas ´ draws from heterogeneous sources. He describes an archaic Quechua, probably identical to the extinct coastal dialect or to the language of the Inca administration, larded with elements taken from central Peruvian dialects. The first Quechua study to appear after Santo Tom´as is an anonymous work published by Antonio Ricardo in 1586. It is best known through a modern edition of Aguilar P´aez (1970). A landmark in the Spanish grammar tradition in relation to Quechua is Diego Gonz´alez Holgu´ın’s Gram´atica y arte nueva de la lengua general de todo el Per´u llamada lengua qquichua o lengua del Inca (New Grammar of the General Language of all of Peru, called the Qquichua Language or Language of the Inca) of 1607, followed by an extensive dictionary (1608) by the same author. Both works describe the ancestor of present-day Cuzco Quechua, thus reflecting a shift in the centre of gravity of what was left of Inca society to the ancient Inca capital. Together with Bertonio’s grammar and dictionary of the Aymara language (cf. section 3.3), Gonz´alez Holgu´ın’s study of the Quechua 192 3 The Inca Sphere language has stood as a model for much later work on Quechua and the other Andean languages. During the eighteenth century the colonial grammar tradition in relation to Quechua became less prominent, although there are some notable exceptions dealing with Ecuadorian (e.g. Velasco 1787). After the Andean republics became independent, many studies of the Inca language came from the outside. Important nineteenth-century contributions to the study of Quechua were made by a Swiss, von Tschudi (1853), and, above all, by the German Middendorf (1890a, b, c, 1891a). Middendorf’s Die einheimischen Sprachen Perus (The Indigenous Languages of Peru) contains a dictionary and grammar of Cuzco Quechua, an edition of the play Ollantay and a collection of poetry. Luis Cordero, one of Ecuador’s former presidents, published a Quichua–Spanish dictionary in 1892. Among the Quechua studies of the first half of the twentieth century figures an interest- ing collection of animal fables in the dialect of Tarma (Vienrich 1906). Markham (1911: 230–4) published a Quechua myth in translation, a fragment of the now well-known Huarochir´ı document guarded in the Spanish National Library in Madrid. A series of texts in different Peruvian dialects by Farf´an (1947–51) and an elaborate dictionary of Cuzco Quechua (Lira 1941) also deserve a mention. In the initial phase of the dialectological tradition which developed in the 1960s, Parker’s work, published in a preliminary form (Parker 1969–71), comprises a great deal of reconstruction of both the A and B branches of Quechua and, above all, a useful Proto-Quechua lexicon (Parker 1969c). Torero published several studies linking the results of his dialectological findings to Andean ethnohistory (1968, 1970, 1974, 1984). Dialectological studies of a regional dimension were carried out by Nardi (1962) for Argentina, by Cerr´on-Palomino (1977a) for the Huanca area, by Taylor (1984) for the Yauyos region, and by Carpenter (1982) and Stark (1985a) for Ecuador. Other dialectological work concerns particular morphemes or morphological cate- gories, exemplified by a series of articles focusing on the personal reference system (Taylor 1979a; Cerr´on-Palomino 1987c; Weber 1987b: 51–75). The grammatical char- acteristics of the language of the Huarochir´ı manuscript constitute another fruitful area of interest (e.g. Dedenbach 1994). For work dealing with syntactic issues in particu- lar dialects, see, for instance, W¨olck (1972) for Ayacucho Quechua, Muysken (1977) for Ecuadorian Quechua, Weber (1983) for Hu´anuco Quechua, Hermon (1985) for Ecuadorian and Ancash Quechua, Lefebvre and Muysken (1988) for Cuzco Quechua, and Van de Kerke (1996) for Bolivian Quechua. Examples of work dealing with phono- logical issues are Cerr´on-Palomino (1973a, b, 1977b, 1989a), Escribens Trisano (1977), Sol´ıs and Esquivel (1979) and Weber and Landerman (1985). It goes without saying that the above enumeration is by no means complete. The Quechua linguistic family is particularly rich in overall descriptions, the earliest modern one being Parker’sgrammar of the Ayacucho dialect. It appeared first in Spanish 3.2 The Quechuan language family 193

(Parker 1965), then in English with a hitherto unsurpassed dictionary supplement (Parker 1969a). Almost contemporaneous with the former is a concise grammatical description of the Quechua I dialect of Llata in the province of Huamal´ıes in the northern part of the department of Hu´anuco (Sol´a 1967). The basis for a description of Ancash Quechua (QI) was laid by Swisshelm of the Benedictine congregation at Huaraz (Swisshelm 1971, 1972, 1974). Partial descriptions of Amazonas Quechua (QIIB), as spoken in the community of Olto (Chachapoyas), and of the dialect of the Pastaza river, which is located in Peru but belongs to the Ecuadorian branch of Quechua IIB, were provided by Taylor (1975, 1994) and by Landerman (1973), respectively. For Bolivian Quechua, the earliest generation of modern descriptive work includes Lastra’sstudy of Cochabamba Quechua (1968). For Colombia, we could add Levinsohn’s description of Inga (1976), written in a rather technical tagmemic framework. The Argentinian Santiago del Estero dialect has been treated in a traditional way by Bravo (1956). Of particular importance to Quechua studies is the year 1976, it being the date of pub- lication of a series of six grammars and dictionaries commissioned by the Peruvian gov- ernment (Cerr´on-Palomino 1976a, b; Coombs, Coombs and Weber 1976; Cusihuaman 1976a, b; Park, Weber and Cenepo 1976; Parker 1976; Parker and Ch´avez 1976; Quesada Castillo 1976a, b; Soto Ruiz 1976a, b). These accessible and easily available works deal with six dialect varieties selected to become regional standards after the officialisation of Quechua in 1975: Ancash–Huaylas (QI), Ayacucho–Chanca(QIIC), Cajamarca–Ca˜naris (QIIA), Cuzco–Collao (QIIC), Jun´ın–Huanca (QI) and San Mart´ın (QIIB). These de- scriptions were designed to serve a normative purpose, and several of them have a polylectal character. Although the initiative is praiseworthy, one should add that some of the descriptions show the signs of a hasty completion. For highly interesting dialects such as Cajamarca, Cuzco and Huanca, they represent a half-way resting-place, rather than a terminus. A comparative study of Quechua morphology (W¨olck 1987) was based on the data provided by these six descriptions. Grammatical descriptions of Peruvian dialects posterior to the 1976 series of Peruvian reference grammars are Adelaar (1977) for the dialects of Tarma and San Pedro de Cajas (QI Yaru) and Weber (1989) for Hu´anuco (QI Alto Pativilca–Alto Mara˜n´on–Alto Huallaga). One may add Taylor (1982a, b, 1994) on Ferre˜nafe Quechua (QIIA) and Adelaar (1982, 1986a) on Pacaraos Quechua. For Bolivia and Ecuador, descriptive work includes a grammar of Bolivian Quechua by Herrero and S´anchez de Lozada (1978) and a reference grammar of the Ecuadorian Imbabura dialect (Cole 1982). One of the most widely used Quechua–Spanish dictionaries is Lara (1971). Although it does not contain an explicit indication of the geographic provenance of the items included, it is based mainly on Bolivian and Cuzco Quechua. It is remarkably useful when reading and translating Quechua texts. A very extensive dictionary (Weber et al. 1998) deals with the lexicon of Hu´anuco Quechua. 194 3 The Inca Sphere

State-of-the-art books are scarce in the field of Quechua studies. One book intended to serve that purpose is B¨uttner (1983). It contains a good survey of older work on Quechua. Cerr´on-Palomino’s Ling¨u´ıstica quechua (1987a) is the reflection of years of academic teaching experience in almost every aspect of Quechua studies. It is particularly useful for its insightful and equitable treatment of the existing literature. See also Cerr´on- Palomino’s extensive survey of Quechua studies in Revista Andina (Cerr´on-Palomino 1985). Books dealing with historical developments surrounding the Quechua language are Torero (1974) and Mannheim (1991). The latter work describes the fate of the Cuzco dialect in colonial and republican times. The 1980s brought a growing interest in the social factors that can contribute to the survival of the Quechua language. Policies of standardisation, whether successful or not, and several ambitious projects in bilingual education have given a renewed impulse to Quechua studies. An example of a study dealing with the Puno experimental project for bilingual education and its effects upon language maintenance by Quechua speakers is Hornberger (1988). At the time of our writing, there are no journals specifically dedicated to Quechua studies, as there are none dealing with Andean languages in general. The journal Papers in Andean Linguistics (1972–5) has remained a short-lived experiment. Articles on Quechua have appeared, inter alia,inAllpanchis (Cuzco), Amerindia (Paris), Bulletin de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines (Lima, Paris), Indiana (Berlin), International Journal of American Linguistics (Chicago), Latin American Indian Literatures Journal (Pennsylvania), Lexis (Lima) and Revista Andina (Cuzco). The absence of specialised journals is somewhat compensated by the frequent appearance of compilation works on Quechua and on the central Andean languages in general (e.g. Cerr´on-Palomino 1982; L´opez 1988; Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs 1990; Cole, Hermon and Mart´ın 1994). Foranintroductory survey of texts and literary production in Quechua see section 3.2.11.

3.2.5 Phonology15 Foranevenly balanced treatment of Quechua phonology, it is best to take the recon- structed phoneme inventory of Proto-Quechua as a starting-point. Roughly speaking,

15 In our discussion of Quechua language data the following orthographic conventions are used. Mid vowels are written i, i:, u, u: when adjacent to a . The symbol q represents any uvular consonant, although its realisation may vary according to the dialect exemplified. The possibilities that obtain are a voiceless or voiced stop, and a voiceless or voiced fricative. There is no phonemic contrast between (plain) uvulars, except in Cuzco Quechua, where a voiceless stop and fricative are contrastive between vowels, as in waqay ‘to cry’ versus wax. ay (< *waqyay ‘to call’). The symbol n is used both for alveolar and for velar nasal allophones. The former occur before vowels, the latter in word-final position and before resonants. Before other consonants, articulatory assimilation is the rule. Phonemic contrast between alveolar and velar nasals (as in Chachapoyas and in northern Jun´ın/Tarma) is peripheral or exceptional. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 195 the phonological characteristics of the modern dialects can be derived from the Proto- Quechua system by assuming regular sound change. A notorious exception is the exis- tence of a contrast between plain, glottalised and aspirated stops and affricates in Cuzco and Bolivian Quechua, and of a similar contrast between plain and aspirated stops in highland Ecuadorian Quechua. Orr and Longacre (1968) assumed that the three-way distinction between plain, glot- talised and aspirated consonants had been inherited from an alleged Proto-Quechumaran through the intermediate stage of Proto-Quechua. Within the Quechuan family, how- ever, this distinction is limited to the subset of the QIIC dialects adjacent to the Aymara linguistic area. Lexical correspondences are frequently inconsistent with respect to glot- talisation and aspiration between dialects and even internally, within the same dialect (e.g. Cuzco Quechua riku- ‘to see’ but rikhu-ri-‘to appear’, both from the same root riku-, against Arequipa Quechua rikhu-, rikhuri-). Likewise, it has been shown that the corre- spondences between Ecuadorian aspirated stops, on the one hand, and Cuzco–Bolivian glottalised and aspirated stops on the other, are not systematic (Torero 1984). As a result, the presence of glottalised and aspirated stops and affricates in Cuzco–Bolivian is often seen as the effect of language contact between these dialects and Aymara, which has the same contrasts. The expansion of glottalisation and aspiration into the native Quechua lexicon was partly explained by a mechanism of iconicity elaborated in Mannheim and Newfield (1982); see also Mannheim (1991: 177–207). Ecuadorian aspiration has been interpreted as a case of Cuzco adstratum, dating from the short period of Inca occupation, possibly in combination with a putative legacy of the area’s pre-Quechuan languages. There is no clear evidence that glottalised and aspirated stops and affricates belonged to the Proto-Quechua phoneme inventory. Reconstructions of the Proto-Quechua sound system are given in Torero (1964) and in Parker (1969b). The differences between the two reconstructions reside in the treatment of liquids, vibrants and long vowels. Parker reconstructs the consonants *l and *ˇr, whereas Torero does not. On the other hand, Torero reconstructs vowel length, whereas Parker only posits short vowels. As it appears now, *l and vowel length were marginally present in Proto-Quechua; *ˇr wasanallophone of *r,which later developed into a distinctive phoneme. It is interesting to observe that the palatal lateral *ly is a frequent speech sound, whereas its plain alveolar counterpart l remains marginal in most dialects. Proto-Quechua has a three-vowel system, consisting of an unrounded front vowel i,arounded back vowel u and a low central vowel a.Ifalength distinction did exist at all, it must have been marginal. The phonetic realisation of the vowels i and u was variable. When adjacent to the uvular consonant q, they were pronounced as mid vowels [e], [o]. They were high vowels [i], [u] elsewhere. Given the situation in the modern dialects, it is likely that this allophonic lowering also occurred before clusters consisting of a resonant (ly, n, r) and q, e.g. Cuzco Quechua sunqu [sɔŋqo] ‘heart’; pirqa [pεrqa] ‘wall’. 196 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.1 Proto-Quechua consonants

Labial Alveolar Palatal Retroflex Velar Uvular

Voiceless Stops p t k q Affricatescˇ ˇ c. Fricatives ssh ˇ Voiced Nasals m n ny Laterals (l) ly Vibrants r (ˇr) Glides w y

Table 3.2 Proto-Quechua vowels

Back Central Front Short Long Short Long Short Long

High u (u:) i (i:) Low a (a:)

The Proto-Quechua vowels and their rather wide range of allophonic realisations have been preserved in a majority of the present-day dialects. At the same time, close contacts with the dominant led to the introduction of mid vowels (e, o)incases where the phonological environment does not predict it. For present- day bilingual speakers, Quechua has a five-vowel system.16 Although it is true that in Quechua borrowings from Spanish the mid vowels are replaced by high vowels in root- final position (e.g. nasi-, na:si- ‘to be born’ from Spanish nace ‘he/she is born’; platu, pla:tu ‘plate’ from Spanish plato), they are often maintained elsewhere, as in mesa, me:sa ‘table’ from Spanish mesa. Dialects in which the uvular stop lost its uvular character almost without exception have annulled the allophonic lowering rule. It illustrates the synchronic dynamism that characterises the relation between the use of mid vowels and the presence of a uvular consonant. The velar and uvular stops *k and *q have merged into k in all Quechua IIB, e.g. Proto-Quechua *qulyqi [qɔlyqe] ‘money’, Ecuadorian (Chimborazo) Quechua kulyki [kulyki]. In QI Huanca the uvular became a velar fricative or a glottal stop, locally evolv- ing into vowel length or zero, and the high vowel was then restored, e.g. Proto-Quechua

16 In literature and everyday imitation Quechua speakers are often represented as substituting high vowels for mid vowels in their pronunciation of Spanish words (sinyuˇr for se˜nor ‘Sir’, etc.). In reality, most speakers of Quechua have learned to master the distinction between high vowels and mid vowels, except in word-final position. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 197

*suqta [sɔqta] ‘six’, Jauja [suxta], Huancayo [suʔta ∼ su:ta]. In dialects that do not have uvulars, the mid vowels are almost exclusively confined to borrowed lexicon. Long vowels (a:, i:, u:)are found in Quechua I and in Pacaraos Quechua. When part of a lexical root, long vowels are most often the product of relatively transparent sound changes if not of borrowing or onomatopoeic formations.17 The role of vowel length in the verbal conjugation and, to a lesser extent, in nominal possessive marking is considerably more complex. It can have a clear morphemic value, as in the case of the first-person marker (e.g. Tarma Quechua wayi ‘house’, wayi-: ‘my house’), or it can fulfill less tangible functions emerging at morpheme boundaries. For instance, in Tarma Quechua ismikta:-ˇci- ‘to cause to stumble’ vowel length is triggered by the trisyllabic structure of the root ismikta-; compare wata-ˇci- ‘to cause to tie’ from wata- ‘to tie’, where this is not the case. Long mid vowels (e:, o:) occur in most dialects that have vowel length. They often occur in loans, where they reflect the stressed vowel of a Spanish model, e.g. Tarma Quechua ke:da- ‘to stay’, ‘to become’ from Spanish queda ‘he/she stays’. In the Callej´on de Huaylas (Ancash) long mid vowels often occur as reflexes of the diphthongs ay and aw,asinwe:ˇco(:) from *wayˇcaw ‘a tyrant-flycatcher (Agriornis montana)’. Some of the Hu´anuco dialects exhibit optional lowering of long high vowels in word-final position (e.g. ni: ∼ ne: ‘I say’; miku: ∼ miko: ‘I eat’); cf. Sol´a (1967), Toliver (1987) and Weber (1989). In linguistic work related to Quechua the diphthongs aw, ay, uy, iw and iy are virtually always analysed as consisting of a vocalic peak and a consonantal coda. Hence the frequent observation in literature that the language has no vowel sequences. It is the statement of a convention, rather than of a fact, because the theoretical argumentation necessary to motivate this choice is seldom provided.18 In virtually all modern literature on Quechua, sequences consisting of two full vowels are analysed as if separated by a glide consonant, e.g. Quechua IIC suwa ‘thief’, tiyay ‘to sit’; QI San Pedro de Cajas (northern Jun´ın) rawu ‘snow’, wayi ‘house’. Similarly, as in the case of the diphthongs, the possibility of analysing such sequences as containing an automatic (non-phonemic) transition has not been duly explored.19 Vowel sequences do occur, however, in the Argentinian dialect of Santiago del Estero, which suffered the loss of intervocalic *w and, therefore, contains sequences of like vowels. The vowels in such sequences are articulated separately or as a long vowel with a descending tone, for instance, in (*tawa >) taa [t´aʔa], [tˆa:] ‘four’ (Kirtchuk 1987).

17 Weber and Landerman (1985) have proposed an analysis of the Quechua long vowels as se- quences of /V/ + /h/, an interpretation which can be defended from a strictly synchronic perspective. 18 Howkins (1973) is one of the few examples of an interpretation in terms of vowel sequences. 19 An exception is found in one of Cerr´on-Palomino’s earliest works (Cerr´on-Palomino 1967). 198 3 The Inca Sphere

Vowel fluctuation between i and a is widely attested in the present-day Quechua dia- lects, most frequently in root-final position. Examples are Pacaraos wawi, other Quechua wawa ‘(woman’s)child’; Tarma pani, Cuzco pana ‘(man’s)sister’. In other cases, such as warmi ‘woman’ alongside warma ‘child’, ‘youngster’ in Ayacucho and Cuzco Quechua, the choice of the vowel is contrastive, and no fluctuation occurs. Fluctuation between a and u (Quechua I kanan against Cuzco Quechua kunan ‘now’) is less frequent. Vowel loss occurs occasionally, e.g. in Cajamarca wanˇci- ‘to kill’ from *wanyu-ˇci- ‘to kill’, ‘to cause to die’. Several sorts of phonetic reduction, including vowel loss, drastically transformed the phonological appearance of QIIB (Taylor 1975, 1994). It appears to be connected with a shift from penultimate to ini- tial word stress, which has occurred in some of the other northern Peruvian dialects as well. Among the consonants, the series of stops and affricates, *p, *t, *ˇc, *ˇc. , *k, *q have been affected by a number of shared or partially shared changes that can be characterised as voicing, fricativisation and the introduction of a contrast between plain, glottalised and aspirated stops (sometimes referred to as laryngealisation). In addition, the affricates and the uvular stop *q suffered further modifications. Voicing is widely found in the northern Quechua dialects, that is, in Ecuador and in northern Peru (both in Quechua IIB, and in the Cajamarca and Ferre˜nafe dialects of the QIIA subbranch). It affected, in particular, stops and affricates following a nasal, as in the following forms from Cajamarca.

(1) *anˇca > andzˇ a ‘very’ (2) *punku > pungu ‘door’

The sixteenth-century lengua general of the Inca administration and the presumed ‘coastal’ dialect described by Santo Tom´as (1560a, b) knew voicing as well (cf. sec- tion 3.2.2). Among the Quechua varieties assignable to the Quechua IIB subdivision, only the language of the early seventeenth-century Huarochir´ı document shows no traces of voicing. Some central Peruvian Quechua I dialects (Tarma in the province of Tarma, Jun´ın; Paccho in the province of Huaura, Lima) exhibit voicing of the grave stops *k and *p. The conditions under which this change took place are most peculiar. As can be seen in the following examples from Tarma, it affected prevocalic non-initial consonants unless they were preceded by a nasal.

(3) *lyuˇcka- > luˇcga- ‘to slip’ (4) *uˇc.pa > uˇc.ba ‘ash’ (5) *apa- > aba- ‘to carry’ (6) *manka > manka ‘pan’ 3.2 The Quechuan language family 199

In some Tarma Quechua suffixes, stops became voiced after a nasal as well, e.g. -guna ‘nominal plural’ (< *-kuna), as in wayi-n-guna ‘his/her/their houses’. The same occurred with the initial consonant of the verb ‘to be’ ga-(< *ka-). Geographically, the Tarma and Paccho dialects are far apart. Leaving aside their behaviour in relation to voicing, they coincide with neighbouring varieties, not with each other. The simultaneous occurrence of a sound change under such highly specific conditions in two totally different places cannot easily be explained. As we saw before, laryngealisation (glottalisation and aspiration) of stops and af- fricates does not seem to be the product of regular sound change. These sounds are generally considered exotic elements in Quechua, although they do occur as well in Quechua roots not borrowed from an Aymaran language. Laryngealised stops and af- fricates are found in a subgroup of the Quechua IIC dialect subdivision, which comprises Cuzco Quechua and the Bolivian varieties. Their presence can have a sound-symbolic meaning. As a rule, no more than a single laryngealised stop or affricate can occur in a Quechua word. If it does, it must be the first prevocalic stop or affricate in the root.20 Quechua suffixes do not normally contain laryngealised stops or affricates.21 In the Ecuadorian central highlands, aspirated stops (not affricates) occur along with plain stops. In the northern highlands (province of Imbabura) the reflexes of aspirated *p and *k are fricative f and x, respectively:

(7) *paki- ‘to break’ > (Pichincha) phaki- > (Imbabura) faki- (8) *qipa ‘afterwards’ > (Pichincha) khipa > (Imbabura) xipa

Fricativisation (consonant or weakening) is prominent in the dialects of the Cuzco region and in Bolivia. This change has affected stops and affricates in syllable- final position. Its output varies both geographically and dialect-internally on the basis of the phonological environment; examples (9) and (10) are from Cuzco Quechua.

(9) *aptay > haxwt’ay ‘to carry with a handle’ (10) *upyay > uxyay ∼ uxay ‘to drink’22

20 Colonial sources, such as Gonz´alez Holgu´ın (1608), suggest that this has not always been the case, e.g. tantta ‘bread’ (presumably [tant’a]), instead of modern t’anta. 21 An exception would be the progressive aspect suffix -ˇcha- in Grau, Apurimac (Torero 1964); cf. Ayacucho -ckaˇ -, Cuzco -sya-, -saˇ -. In the subdialects of Puno and Arequipa, suffixes borrowed from Aymara preserve the glottalised and/or aspirated stops of the donor language, e.g. in tiy- thapi-ˇci- ‘to cause to live together’, from Quechua tiya-ˇci- ‘to cause to reside’ and the Aymara suffix -thapi- ‘together’. 22 The palatal glide is optionally lost in Cuzco Quechua after a velar or a uvular fricative. 200 3 The Inca Sphere

Mannheim (1991: 55–6) observes a correlation between syllable-final weakening, on one hand, and the introduction of glottalisation and aspiration in syllable-initial positions on the other. Nevertheless, Stark (1985b) reports that the northern Bolivian Quechua variety of Apolo (province of Franz Tamayo, La Paz, Bolivia) was not affected by syllable-final fricativisation, although it has glottalised and aspirated stops. Landerman (1994) makes the same observation for eastern Apurimac. In Cuzco Quechua, syllable final *p loses its labial character in suffixes. Its reflex is a uvular fricative, which can no longer be distinguished from the homophonous reflex of *q:

(11) *muna-pti-n > muna-qti-n [munax.tiŋ] ‘if he/she wants it’ (12) *runa-p > runa-q [runax.] ‘of a man’ The different orthographies currently in use for Cuzco Quechua and the Bolivian dialects do not systematically reflect the newly formed fricative distinctions that obtain in syllable-final and intervocalic positions. In Ecuadorian Quechua consonant lenition only affects the (merged) velar and uvular stops:

(13) *pusaq > pusax ‘eight’ (14) *paˇc.ak > paˇcax ‘hundred’ The Proto-Quechua distinction between the affricates cˇ and c.ˇ has been preserved unmodified in the southern half and in the extreme north of the Quechua I territory (all of Jun´ın, province of Pasco in Pasco, province of Yauyos in Lima, and province of Sihuas in Ancash), in the Quechua IIA dialects of Ferre˜nafe, Cajamarca and Yauyos, and in Quechua IIB Amazonas. Of the remaining dialects, several, such as Ayacucho and Hu´anuco Quechua, have lost the distinction.

(15) *cˇ.aki > cakiˇ ‘foot’ *cakiˇ > cakiˇ ‘dry’

In Cuzco and Bolivian Quechua, the old distinction between the two affricates is reflected by the presence of glottalisation in one of the members of the minimal pair just exemplified.

(16) *cˇ.aki > cakiˇ ‘foot’ *cakiˇ > c’akiˇ ‘dry’

However, there is no question of a regular change, as can be seen in example (17) where *ˇc is reflected without glottalisation.

(17) *cakaˇ > cakaˇ ‘bridge’ 3.2 The Quechuan language family 201

In the old distinction between retroflex *ˇc. and alveopalatal *ˇc is partly preserved in the fricative reflexes of these sounds that occur in syllable-final position (Cerr´on-Palomino 1986: 407–8).

(18) *aˇcka > aˇskha ‘many’ (19) *wiˇc.qay > wisq’ay ‘to close’ In part of the Quechua I dialects (and in Pacaraos), there has been a tendency to enlarge the difference between the two affricates (which, admittedly, is not always easy to perceive). In much of the northwestern part of the Quechua I area (Ancash, northern and western Hu´anuco, provinces of Cajatambo, Huaral, Huaura and Oy´on in Lima, province of Daniel Carri´on in Pasco), the alveopalatal affricate became an alveolar affricate (c)orfricative (s), e.g. Callej´on de Huaylas caki,Pacaraos saki ‘dry’. Subsequently, in most of Ancash, western Hu´anuco and in Cajatambo the retroflex af- fricate was advanced to the articulatory position of the former alveopalatal, e.g. Callej´on de Huaylas cakiˇ ‘foot’. In dialects where the affricates did not undergo the full sequence of fronting shifts, the resulting gap was filled up by the introduction of an alveopalatal affricate (cˇ) from other sources. As a result, the dialects of Yanahuanca (Daniel Carri´on, Pasco) and Picoy (Huaura, Lima) distinguish three affricate positions: c.ˇ, cˇ and c (Escobar 1967, Creider 1967). An opposite development can be observed in the province of Concepci´on in the department of Jun´ın. In that subdialect of QI Huanca, the alveopalatal affricate cˇ has become a retroflex (e.g. *cakaˇ > c.ˇaka ‘bridge’), thus creating the space for a further change of *ly to cˇ (see below). For an extensive treatment of this phenomenon see Cerr´on-Palomino (1973a, 1989a). Of all consonants in the stop–affricate series, the uvular stop *q has proven the least stable. It may be the case that Quechua expanded into areas where this sound had not been in use previously (for a discussion of this issue see Cerr´on-Palomino 1990). QIIA Cajamarca and QI Callej´on de Huaylas are among the few dialects that have preserved the uvular stop unmodified. In the Quechua IIB dialects *q merged with *k into present- day k [k]. In Cuzco Quechua and in the Bolivian and Argentinian dialects, it was affected by syllable-final fricativisation (see above). In Bolivia, the plain (non-glottalised, non- aspirated) uvular became a fricative in other positions as well. The reflex of *q is also a uvular fricative in Ayacucho Quechua, in Pacaraos Quechua and in the Quechua I dialects of northern Jun´ın. In the area of Tarma and Jauja its uvular character became less prominent, leading eventually to a merger with the glottal fricative *h.Inthe northeastern sector of Quechua I (Hu´anuco), the modern realisation of *q is usually a voiced stop (often written as g). 202 3 The Inca Sphere

The loss of intervocalic *q was reported for Pachitea Quechua in Hu´anuco by Toliver (1987). However, as we have seen before, the most drastic transformation of the ancient uvular stop can be observed in the Huanca dialects of Huancayo and Concepci´on in southern Jun´ın. There, the uvular stop at first became a glottal stop. In some local varieties it then turned into vowel length (internally and when syllable-final) or zero (in most other environments). In the village of Chongos Bajo the effect of the glottal stop is preserved after a nasal n by the fact that the latter is represented by its velar allophone in the combination nʔ [ŋʔ ∼ ŋ]; in this case, the presence of the glottal stop itself is redundant.

(20) *sinqa > sinʔa [siŋʔa ∼ siŋa] ‘nose’

In the town of Chupaca, the loss of the glottal stop was total in this case. It also triggered the loss of the preceding nasal, the combination being replaced by a glide (Cerr´on-Palomino 1989a: 72–3).

(21) *sinqa > siya ‘nose’

Several verbal suffixes with an internal *q (particularly, -sqaˇ ‘past participle’, -rqa- ‘past tense’, and -rqu- originally ‘outward movement’, now several other mean- ings) show a tendency to lose the q element in a large number of dialects. One finds either synchronic variation (Ayacucho -r(q)u-, -r(q)a-, Ecuador -r(k)a-), complete loss (Tarma -ru-,-ra-, -saˇ ), or obligatory presence of q (Ancash, Pacaraos, Puno -rqu-, -rqa-, -sqa/-sqaˇ ). It may mean that the variation is traceable to the proto-language. A simi- lar case with an internal *k is -yku- (originally ‘inward movement’, now several other meanings), which alternates with -yu- (or even -y-)inmany dialects. The two sibilants *ˇs and *s have remained distinct in all Quechua dialects except in most of the Quechua IIC branch and in the Colombian Ingano dialect, where the two sounds have merged into s. The realisation of *ˇs is alveopalatal [ˇs] throughout the dialects maintaining the distinction, except in Quechua I Huanca where it is a retroflex or apical [ˇs.]. Additionally, the Huanca dialects have [ˇs] before i and in a limited number of proper names (e.g. santiˇ , Spanish Santiago ‘St James’). Quechua IIC Santiago del Estero is different from the other Quechua IIC dialects in that it retains the distinction between an alveodental and an alveopalatal fricative after i before a consonant (cf. de Reuse 1986), as in (22):

(22) a. *iˇskay > iˇskay ‘two’ b. *ismuy > ismuy ‘to rot’

The fate of the alveodental *s has been much more varied than that of its alveopalatal counterpart. In Pacaraos and in most of the Quechua I dialects (e.g. Ancash, northern 3.2 The Quechuan language family 203

Jun´ın) *s became a glottal fricative (h)word-initially; in syllable-final position *s was retained everywhere.

(23) *sara > hara ‘maize’

Word-medially, after a , *s became h in northeastern Ancash, and zero in Callej´on de Huaylas and Tarma/northern Jun´ın, but it was retained in several other Quechua I dialects (e.g. in Huanca).

(24) *kumsay > kumhay, kunhay ‘to push’ kumay

The Quechua I dialect of Jauja (Jun´ın) retains s in lexical items where all other Quechua dialects have h or a reflex of *h.

(25) sana ‘upper part’ (compare Cuzco hanaq) (26) sampiy ‘to cure’ (compare Cuzco hampiy)

The unique cases of s-retention in Jauja have been attributed to hypercorrection (Parker 1971: 59–60; cf. Cerr´on-Palomino 1989a: 28). It should be observed, however, that several lexical items with initial h, such as hatun ‘big’, are never found with s instead of h, not even in Jauja. The changes affecting *s allow for several exceptions. Initial s was preserved in a number of words with negative connotations (siki ‘buttocks’, sakwa- ‘to have sex- ual intercourse’, supi- ‘to break wind’, supay ‘devil’, ‘evil spirit’, suwa ‘thief’) and, rather persistently, in a few additional lexical items not belonging to the taboo sphere (sapi ‘root’, sinqa ‘nose’). This phenomenon may be related to a mechanism of sound- symbolism still productive in Tarma (northern Jun´ın) Quechua. It involves the frica- tives s, sˇ, and h in lexical sets characterised by the presence of a pejorative member with s,ahypochoristic member with sˇ, and a neutral member with h (Adelaar 1977: 290–2). Some lexical items are notorious for exhibiting irregular reflexes of the sibi- lants. The numeral ‘one’ and the verb ‘to come’ appear as huk (or its reflex) and hamu-, respectively, in most of the Quechua IIC dialects, which otherwise preserve initial s.However, a sibilant appears in Ecuadorian Quechua (suxˇ , samuˇ -) and in the Argentinian Santiago del Estero dialect (sux,butamu-). In Quechua I, we find huk and samuˇ - for these items. A similar confusion surrounds the words for ‘name’ (QI northern Jun´ın huti; QI Huancayo, .sˇuti;QIJauja, QIIC suti; QIIB sutiˇ ); and ‘young lady’ (QI northern Jun´ın, eastern Ancash hipaˇs;QICallej´on de Huaylas, QIIB San Mart´ın sipaˇˇ s; QIIC sipas). 204 3 The Inca Sphere

The palatal resonants *l y and *ny have been subject to depalatalisation (to l and n, respectively) in a number of Quechua I dialects. Surprisingly, the two changes do not always coincide. Ancash Quechua, for instance, maintains palatal l y but has changed *ny to n,whereas the opposite obtains in Pacaraos Quechua. Other dialects, such as Tarma Quechua, have undergone both depalatalisations. As in the case of the sibilants, there appears to be a close relationship between the historical process of depalatalisation and the rise of sound-symbolic mechanisms. In Tarma Quechua, the palatal resonants are now used as the hypochoristic counterparts of the non-palatals; an interesting example is (27):

(27) *lyanyu > lyanu ‘thin’ > lyanyu ‘very thin’

If the sound changes were automatic, both consonants should have been de- palatalised. In this case, however, one depalatalisation suffices to open the possibility of a hypochoristic back-formation (l yanyu ‘very thin’). Whether or not *ly remained unmodified for this reason remains a matter of speculation, but the example certainly illustrates the fact that depalatalisation is far from being a change without exceptions. Furthermore, the impact of depalatalisation must not be overestimated, because minimal pairs involving a palatal and a non-palatal nasal were rare in Proto-Quechua, whereas non-palatal *l was confined to just a few lexical items, if it occurred at all. In the Argentinian Santiago del Estero dialect the palatal lateral *ly has become avoiced alveopalatal fricative [ˇz]. The same has occurred in many Ecuadorian and northern Peruvian dialects, where either the fricative or an affricate [dzˇ ]isfound. Both in Argentina and in Ecuador these changes illustrate an incipient sprachbund as they seem related to parallel developments in the local Spanish.

(28) *lyaki ‘sorrow’ > (Imbabura) zakiˇ > (Cajamarca) dzˇ aki (29) *alyqu ‘dog’ > (Cotopaxi) aˇsku > (Cajamarca) adzˇ qu

A rather unusual development of *l y is attested near Concepci´on in the depart- ment of Jun´ın. There the palatal lateral became a voiceless alveopalatal affricate cˇ (Cerr´on-Palomino 1989a: 42–3, 60–1). A similar development was observed in Salasaca, in Ecuador (see section 3.2.8).

(30) *qilyay ‘money’ > (Concepci´on) iˇcay (Huancayo) ilyay

All Quechua dialects have an alveodental flap r.Inaddition, most dialects have a slightly affricated retroflex vibrant rˇ,which is regularly used to represent the Spanish 3.2 The Quechuan language family 205 rolled r or rr in loan words. This sound may also function as a distributional variant of the flap r in native words. This is the case in Ayacucho Quechua word-finally (e.g. in yawar [yawaˇr] ‘blood’), and in San Pedro de Cajas (northern Jun´ın) Quechua word- initially, e.g. in rumi [ˇrumi] ‘stone’. Bolivian Quechua, like several varieties of , has a voiced alveodental fricative [z] in word-initial position, instead of the retroflex, e.g. in rumi [zumi] ‘stone’. The distribution of rˇ in Ayacucho Quechua has led to a marginal phonemic opposition between r and rˇ in cases like arpas (Spanish arpa) ‘’ and yawaˇr-pa ‘of the blood’ (Parker 1969a). The dialect of Pacaraos exhibits the unusual case of a phonemic opposition between a flap r and a trilled rr in word-initial position (see section 3.2.9). The most radical change affecting the vibrants is the lateralisation found in Quechua I Huanca (Concepci´on, Huancayo and Jauja) and in some of the neighbouring Yauyos dialects (Cacra, Hongos).

(31) *rimay ‘to speak’ > (Chongos Bajo) limay (32) *qunqur ‘knee’ > (Chongos Bajo) un?ul

All Huanca dialects have acquired new r-like sounds, e.g. in yawaˇr ‘blood’. They are probably due to borrowing from one of the neighbouring non-lateralising dialects, such as Ayacucho. The *r > l change may have had a wider distribution in early colonial times.23 The nasal consonants *n and *m have been preserved without major modifications in the modern Quechua dialects, except for Cuzco Quechua and Bolivian Quechua where they are no longer distinguished in syllable-final position. Traditionally, all nasal allo- phones in syllable-final position that are not pronounced [m] are assigned to a phoneme /n/ and are written n regardless of the differences in pronunciation. Before a word bound- ary, before glottal stop (in the Huanca dialects), before resonants, and, in some dialects, before fricatives as well, a velar allophone [ŋ] occurs. Elsewhere, the articulation point of a syllable-final nasal is assimilated to that of the following consonant. The treatment of [m] before a labial stop is not uniform. Some authors write m, e.g. campaˇ ‘piece of grass-cover’, wasi-m-pa ‘of his house’. Others write m within a root and n at morpheme boundaries; still others write n in both cases. In most dialects, the labial character of m is lost before a labial resonant (m, w), e.g. Ayacucho Quechua qam [x.am] ‘you’, but qan- man [x.aŋmaŋ] ‘to you’. The dialects of the Tarma region (northern Jun´ın) have developed

23 The name of Lima, the Peruvian capital, is a case in point. It was derived from the expression *rimaq ‘the one who speaks’, ‘an oracle’. The name of the river Rimac, which flows through the city, reflects the pronunciation of a more conservative dialect. Although the old town of Lima was situated on the coastal plain, its name may have become known in the pronunciation of the Jauja dialect, where it would have been approximately [limax]. 206 3 The Inca Sphere a marginal distinction between alveodental [n] and velar [ŋ] before the glides y and w, e.g. [wanyay] ‘to use guano’ (Andean Spanish guanear), [waŋyay] ‘to strike a blow’. Proto-Quechua and most modern dialects exhibit a straightforward syllable-structure of the CV(C) type, with the sole exception that word-initial syllables are (C)V(C). Long vowels are structurally equivalent to a VC sequence. Quechua has few constraints on the occurrence of consonant clusters at syllable boundaries. This situation is particularly evident in the conservative central Peruvian Quechua I dialects, where over a hundred combinations are permitted. As a result of consonant lenition in syllable-final position, the number of combinations has been reduced substantially in Cuzco Quechua and in Bolivian Quechua. Word-final consonant clusters and medial clusters of more than two consonants are not allowed. A connective element -ni- serves the purpose of avoiding impossible consonant sequences in nominal morphology (see the discussion of the possessive markers in section 3.2.6 for an example). Its use, however, is not entirely restricted to nouns, and it appears to have played a role within the history of the verbal personal reference system as well. The connective -ni-isalso used after long vowels, as in the following example from Chup´an in northern Jun´ın, where it separates recurrent instances of the first-person subject marker -: in a verb form:

(33) tarpu-pa:ku-:-n´ı-: sow-PL-1S-EU-1S ‘We (exclusive) sow.’ In most Quechua dialects stress is assigned to the penultimate vowel of each polysyl- labic word form and thus provides an easy phonology-based criterion for word delimita- tion. Exceptionally, in interjections and emphatic expressions, stress can be word-final, e.g. in alal´aw ‘how cold!’. In Tarma and the dialect of northern Jun´ın word-final stress can occur as a result of the elision of a final syllable.

(34) aywa-mu-ra-ygi ∼ aywa-mu-r´a-y go-H-PA-2S ‘You came.’

In the Quechua I dialects stress is maintained in word-final position when the long vowel morpheme referring to first-person subject or possessor is immediately followed by aword boundary. (Length oppositions not connected with the first-person morpheme are normally neutralised in word-final position, in which case stress is regularly assigned to the penultimate syllable.) Example (35) illustrates the use of a first-person marker in Huanca; cf. also (33).

(35) w´asi ‘house’ was´ı-: ‘my house’ 3.2 The Quechuan language family 207

In Pacaraos Quechua (see section 3.2.9) stress is phonemic. It may lie either on the penultimate or on the final syllable. Word-final stress in Pacaraos is either due to the elision of a final syllable, for instance, in akˇs´u-k, from akˇs´u-kta (potato-AC), or to a word-final occurrence of the first-person marker -´y. Otherwise, penultimate stress is predominant. More complex, non-penultimate stress patterns, involving word-initial stress and stress dependent on syllable structure, are found in QI Ancash and in QI Cajatambo (cf. Torero 1964: 461; Parker 1976). The northern Peruvian dialects QIIA Ferre˜nafe (Escribens 1977) and QIIB Amazonas (Taylor 1975; Chaparro 1985) also have deviant stress patterns, as had the sixteenth-century coastal dialect described by Santo Tom´as. For the dialect of Huaraz (department of Ancash) the following stress pattern is de- scribed (Torero 1964). Syllables can be either long (CVC, CV:) or short (CV). If a word contains a long syllable which is not word-final, the latter is stressed. If there are several non-final long syllables, either the last one, or the one which has a long vowel can be stressed, or stress can be distributed over several long syllables. If there are no non-final long syllables, the first syllable is stressed or the final syllable when it contains a long vowel.24

3.2.6 Grammar Quechua is essentially agglutinative. Its morphological structure is almost entirely based on the use of suffixes and is extremely regular. Vocalic alternations, including length and quality alternations, occur to a limited extent in part of the dialects. There are no prefixes25 and compounds are exceptional. Syntactic constructions in Quechua are basically head-final (except for relative clauses which may follow their antecedents). Constituent order in main clauses is basically free, but there is a certain preference for the order subject–object–verb, which is required in dependent clauses. Possessive relations are indicated both on the head and on the dependent nominal. Case relations are marked by special suffixes which are attached at the end of the noun phrase. Quechua is a nominative–accusative language. Nominative case is not marked. Equations and other constructions involving a nominal predicate contain the copula verb ka- ‘to be’, which in other contexts has the meaning ‘to exist’. In most dialects, the third-person copula ka-n ‘he/she/it is’ is left out so long as it is not needed for

24 Whether or not an Ancash-type accentuation pattern reflects that of Proto-Quechua is a matter of debate. Against this view, advocated by Torero (1964), we may argue that the essentially penultimate stress of Pacaraos Quechua provides a plausible explanation for the development of the first-person markers in both branches of the Quechua linguistic family, hence it is likely to have been inherited from Proto-Quechua. 25 Ecuadorian Quechua has an element ila- ‘step-’, which could be interpreted as a prefix. 208 3 The Inca Sphere carrying other suffixes. There is no straightforward passive, nor is there an overt distinc- tion between transitive and intransitive verbs. Special verbal endings, nominalisation, case marking and the so-called independent or sentential suffixes (see below) take the place of conjunctions, which are virtually non-existent in the language, unless they are borrowed from Spanish. However, some deictic expressions may function as sentence organisers in conditional and correlative constructions. They are also used to indicate the relation between sentences in a discourse, e.g. cay-qaˇ (that-TO) ‘but’; cay-miˇ (that-AF) ‘therefore’, ‘so’. Adjectives are similar to nouns in their syntactic behaviour. It is not always easy to distinguish between the two categories. In an example such as (Ayacucho Quechua) rumi wasi ‘stone house’, rumi can be interpreted either as a noun ‘stone’, or as an adjective ‘made of stone’. The main criterion for establishing the difference is that a noun can func- tion by itself as the subject in a sentence, whereas real adjectives can only act as subjects when followed by an element that indicates their status as an independent item; an ele- ment frequently so used is ka-q ‘(the one) that is’, e.g. in hatun ka-q ‘the (a) big one’. The original morphological complexity of Quechua has been preserved remarkably well in most of the dialects (including dialects which are on the verge of extinction, such as Pacaraos Quechua). As an exception to this, the Ecuadorian and Colombian dialects (including the Ecuadorian and northern Peruvian jungle dialects) exhibit a rather simplified morphology. For instance, the possessive markers on nouns are no longer used there. Compare (36) from Ecuador to (37) from Ayacucho, Cuzco or Huancayo.

(36) kam-pax wasi you-G house ‘your house’ (37) wasi-ki house-2P ‘your house’

From a formal point of view, most Quechua suffixes are easy to identify. There exist afew portmanteau suffixes occurring at the end of a verb form, which refer to specific combinations of tense, mood and person. Personal reference marking in verbs involves two speech-act participants, the subject and a direct or indirect object. The object par- ticipant must be human. Some combinations of subject and object reference in verbs involve the use of suffixes that have different meanings from those which they convey when considered independently from those combinations. Apart from the somewhat complex cases just mentioned, each instance of a suffix corresponds to a particular meaning. However, the exact semantic nature of the verbal derivational suffixes and their pragmatics are often difficult to determine. Some suffixes have different meanings depending on the contexts in which they occur. Combinations 3.2 The Quechuan language family 209 of suffixes may convey special meanings even in cases where the suffixes involved are not contiguous. Some suffix meanings are clear and straightforward, but others are quite subtle and can be mastered by a non-native speaker only with difficulty. The use of the verbal derivational suffixes exhibits a remarkable variety throughout the dialects. This circumstance constitutes an obstacle for communication among Quechua speakers of distinct areas and is one of the main reasons why the different Quechuan varieties are usually treated as linguistic entities in their own right. The morphological transparency which emanates from most descriptions of Quechua is no more than a matter of ap- pearance. Short grammatical labels or one-line characterisations of the meaning of a suffix generally hide a complex reality. The order in which suffixes occur in a verb form is essentially fixed, although more than one option may be available in some parts of the suffix inventory. Descriptive studies differ in the extent to which they suc- ceed in capturing the rules that govern suffix order in Quechua. For an admirably thor- ough analysis of the different order options in a Quechua dialect (Ayacucho) see Parker (1969a). Morphology plays a very dominant role in Quechua. Several functions which in other languages are assigned to intonation, to word order or to lexical expressions (function words) are indicated by means of morphological markers in Quechua. There exists a special set of affixes that can be attached to verbal, as well as to nominal expressions. They also occur with expressions which are neither verbal nor nominal. In the litera- ture the members of this set are referred to as independent suffixes, sentential suffixes, class-free suffixes or enclitics. Independent suffixes cannot occur in every position in the sentence. With a few exceptions, subordinate clauses and noun phrases with a hi- erarchically organised inner structure function in their totality as bases of attachment for the independent suffixes. The combination of a nominal predicate and the copula verb ka- ‘to be’ can contain no more than a single locus for the attachment of in- dependent suffixes. In such constructions independent suffixes are normally attached to the nominal predicate even though the latter precedes the copula, as is very often the case. The functions of the independent suffixes include data source, polar question marking (-ˇcu)26, topic or contrast (-qa), notions such as ‘still’ or ‘first’ (-raq), ‘already’ (-nya), ‘even’, ‘too’ (-pas, -pis, -si) and ‘on the other hand’, ‘as you know well’ (-taq). In com- bination with interrogative expressions (wh-words), the independent suffixes acquire special meanings. Negation is indicated by the combination of an independent suffix following the negated element and a lexical expression (mana in statements, ama in

26 The shape of the suffixes listed here is a reconstructed form, which may emerge differently in some dialects. Henceforth, this will be the case whenever there is no reference to a particular dialect. 210 3 The Inca Sphere exhortations) that occurs before it. In most dialects the independent suffix used in nega- tions (-ˇcu)isidentical to that which marks a polar question; in Tarma, for instance, we find:

(38) ali-ˇcu good-IR ‘Is it good?’ (39) mana-m ali-ˇcu not-AF good-NE ‘It is not good.’ In Huanca the independent suffix marking a polar question has a special form, different from the one used in negations (40).

(40) tanta-kta-ˇcun apa-mu-nki bread-AC-IR carry-H-2S ‘Will you bring bread?’ (Cerr´on-Palomino 1976a: 232–3) (41) mana-m tanta-kta-ˇcu no-AF bread-AC-NE ‘No, not bread.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino 1976a: 232–3) A similar situation obtains in Ancash Quechua where the interrogative suffix is -ku, as opposed to -cu (< *-ˇcu)innegative expressions (Parker 1976: 148–9). The independent suffixes that indicate data source are usually referred to in the lit- erature as evidentials or validators. The data source system is primarily based on a three-way distinction. The validity of the source from which the information was drawn, either through personal witness, hearsay, or conjecture is consistently marked in most declarative sentences. The contrast is illustrated in (42) in examples from northern Jun´ın/Tarma.

(42) mana-m ali-ˇcu mana-ˇs ali-ˇcu mana-ˇc. ali-ˇcu not-AF good-IR not-HS good-IR not-DU good-IR ‘It is not good (I know).’ ‘It is not good (I heard).’ ‘It is not good (I guess).’

In most Quechua dialects the validators have syllabic, as well as non-syllabic allo- morphs. The syllabic allomorphs (-mi;-siˇ , -si; -ˇc. i, -ˇci,-caˇ 27) occur after a consonant, a diphthong, or a long vowel; the non-syllabic allomorphs (-m; -ˇs,-s; -ˇc. , -ˇc) occur after a short vowel.

27 The forms with final i occur in the Quechua I dialects except in Huanca. The a variant occurs in the other dialects. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 211

Table 3.3 The Quechua four-person system

Speaker Addressee

1 +− 2 −+ 3 −− 4 ++

Validators tend to select the first available unit of attachment in a sentence. However, the presence of another independent suffix, such as the -qa or the additive marker -pas,-pis,-si28 (‘too’, ‘even’), causes a validator to move to the next available unit. It is also possible to mark out a particular constituent of the sentence as the answer to a question by attaching a validator to it. For that purpose, the validator can move further to the right. This combination of facts may lead to the impression that the configuration of a topic marker and a validator represents some sort of a topic–comment structure. This impression is invalidated by examples such as the following sentence (from Ayacucho), in which there is no topic marker; the validator remains attached to the first constituent, in this case, the topic:

(43) kay-mi qiqa this-AF chalk ‘This is a (piece of) chalk.’

Nominal morphology comprises devices for case, number and personal reference marking. Personal reference markers identify the possessor of a noun in relations of genuine possession or in any other relation between two nominal entities envisaged as such. A four-term personal reference system, similar to that which obtains in Aymara (Hardman et al. 1988: 18; cf. also section 3.3.4), is found in the conservative central Peruvian Quechua I dialects. It can be described in terms of the presence (or absence) of a speaker and an addressee, the two main participants in the speech act (see table 3.3). The fourth person refers to a group of people including both the speaker and the addressee. In practice, it takes the place of a first-person-plural inclusive as it is found in other native American languages. By contrast, Quechua I first-person markers may refer either to the speaker, or to a group of people including the speaker but not the addressee. In most Quechua I dialects, the first-person-plural exclusive possessor with nouns is not morphologically distinct from the first-person-singular possessor. The distinction can be

28 The affix -si is found in a number of Quechua I dialects, along with one or both of the other forms which occur throughout the main branches of the Quechua family. 212 3 The Inca Sphere made explicit by adding a lexical expression of the possessor, as in (44) and (45) from northern Jun´ın:

(44) wayi-: house-1P ‘my/our (exclusive) house’ (45) nuqa:-kuna-pa wayi-: I-PL-G house-1P ‘our (exclusive) house’

In verbs the difference between a first-person-plural exclusive and a first-person sin- gular is indicated by means of a verbal plural marker (see below). The proto-forms underlying the Quechua second, third and fourth nominal person markers are -(y)ki, -n and -nˇcik, respectively. They or their reflexes are found in all present-day dialects, except those that no longer mark personal reference on nouns. By contrast, the first-person ending is variable (see section 3.2.3). Consonant-final stems are followed by the connective element -ni-inorder to permit the attachment of personal reference markers, as in (46) from Ayacucho or northern Jun´ın.

(46) mikuy-ni-ki food-EU-2P ‘your food’

In virtually all Quechua dialects noun plurality can be indicated by means of the plurality marker -kuna. Although the marking of plurality is not an obligatory procedure in Quechua, the suffix -kuna can be used with any noun referring to a set of individualised items. There is no distinction between count and non-count nouns.

(47) mikuy-kuna food-PL ‘foodstuffs’, ‘sorts of food’, ‘livestock’

Along with the straightforward process of noun referent pluralisation here described, most Quechua II dialects have developed (or maintained) a system of number marking that is accessory to personal reference marking. The affixes in question pluralise a possessor, a verbal subject, or a verbal object. Both types of plurality (noun referent plurality and personal reference plurality) are kept apart consistently. The IIC branch exhibits the most elaborate system of personal reference number marking. There are separate endings for second-person plurality (-ˇcik,-cisˇ 29) and for non-second-person plurality (first- and third-person -ku). These

29 The endings in -s (-ˇcis and -nˇcis) are found in Quechua IIC, except Ayacucho. They may either co-occur with reflexes of -ˇcik and -nˇcik,orbethe only option as is the case in Cuzco Quechua. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 213 suffixes do not take the place of the regular person markers but follow them.30 Two plural markers may occur in a sequence, but combinations of -ku and -kuna are avoided. Consider (48), (49), (50) from Ayacucho:

(48) wasi-ki-ˇcik-kuna house-2P-PL.2-PL ‘your (plural) houses’ (49) wasi-y-ku house-1P-PL.1/3 ‘our (exclusive) house(s)’ (50) wasi-y-kuna house-1P-PL ‘my houses’, ‘our (exclusive) houses’

In the northern Quechua II dialects (Cajamarca, Amazonas) personal reference num- ber is marked differently. Reflexes of *-l yapa ‘all’ and *-sapa ‘each’ are found instead of -ku and -ˇcik.InEcuadorian Highland Quechua the marker -kuna corresponds to both -ku and -kuna of the southern Quechua II dialects. Case marking plays an important role in Quechua nominal morphology. Case is marked on the final word of a noun phrase or a relative clause when preceded by its an- tecedent. Only the subject, a nominal predicate and some adverbial expressions (mostly referring to time) occur without a case marker. Furthermore, the accusative case marker is optionally absent in the context of a nominalised verb. Case markers are limited in number, more specific spatial relations being paraphrased by means of body-part nouns or special positional nouns. Most case-marking suffixes vary in shape across the dialects, albeit not all in an equally radical way. The accusative case marker indicates a direct object, an indirect object or a deliberately selected geographic goal. Its shape is -ta,but some dialects (Huanca, Pacaraos, colonial Cuzco Quechua) provide evidence of an allomorph -kta after (short) vowels, which undoubtedly goes back to Proto-Quechua. In a similar way, the genitive case marker is -pa in most dialects but is subject to allomorphic variation in some conservative dialects (Huanca, Cuzco). Huanca -p and Cuzco Quechua -q,aswell

30 The fourth-person ending -nˇcik (-nˇcis) could be interpreted as a compound ending due to its partial similarity with the pluraliser -ˇcik (-ˇcis). From a synchronic point of view, such an in- terpretation is defendable for Quechua IIC (and for some Quechua IIB dialects). Historically, however, -nˇcik goes back to Proto-Quechua, whereas there is no evidence of such antiquity for the pluraliser -ˇcik,which does not occur in Quechua I. It seems plausible to assume that both endings took their origin from the lexical element *ˇcika ‘size’, albeit at different times (cf. Cerr´on-Palomino 1987a: 205). 214 3 The Inca Sphere as Bolivian Quechua -qpa, occur after (short) vowels and reflect an original postvocalic allomorph *-p.Inthe Quechua IIB branch -pa is sometimes replaced by reflexes of the benefactive case marker -paq.InEcuador *-pa and *-paq have merged as -pax (< *-paq). In addition, the benefactive marker -paq remains in use in virtually all dialects, including those exhibiting the -pa/-paq alternation. Both the accusative (in Quechua II) and the genitive case markers (in Quechua I) are used for indicating adverbial use of adjectives. The genitive case marker occurs on the dependent (possessor) member of a possessive construction, whereas the (possessed) head is marked for third person. Only when the possessor is a pronoun can the head be marked for first, second or fourth (inclusive) person under a condition of agreement. It follows that in a full possessive construc- tion the members are obligatorily double-marked; cf. the examples (51) and (52) from Ayacucho.

(51) runa-pa wasi-n man-G house-3P ‘a person’s house’ (52) qam-pa wasi-ki you-G house-2P ‘your house’

Spatial case marking is limited to a general indication of the direction of a motion or the absence of it. The locative case marker indicates location in rest regardless of the nature of the position with respect to the case-marked object. The shape of the locative marker is not dialectally uniform. It is -pi in most of Quechua II and -ˇc. aw (or its reflex) in Quechua I (cf. section 3.2.3). Some dialects, in the area of Yauyos (department of Lima) use -pa, rather than either -pi or -ˇc. aw for locative. This practice could be due to language contact, judging from the fact that in Aymara the genitive and locative case markers coincide as well (cf. section 3.3.6). Two case markers can be used to indicate motion towards a goal. It is one of the functions of the accusative marker -(k)ta and the principal function of the ‘allative’ marker -man. The functional demarcation between the two markers does not always coincide in the dialects. For -(k)ta to be used the subject must be human or humanised, the action must be deliberate and the goal must have a fixed position. Non-human subjects and moving or non-local goals require the use of -man. The examples (53) and (54), also from Ayacucho, illustrate this.

(53) yaku-man ri-ni water-AL go-1S ‘I go for water (wherever I can find it).’ 3.2 The Quechuan language family 215

(54) kay nyan-qa ayakuˇcu-man ri-n this road-TO Ayacucho-AL go-3S ‘This road goes to Ayacucho.’

The directional use of the two case markers just discussed is extended metaphorically to the function of indirect-object marking. In the southern Quechua II dialects there is a tendency to use -man for indirect objects and -(k)ta for direct objects, whereas the central Peruvian Quechua I dialects use -(k)ta for both purposes. A special directional case marker -kama conveys the meaning ‘until’ both in a temporal and in a spatial sense. This marker is related to the verb kama- ‘to fit’, ‘to animate’ (a religious concept). The concept of separation (‘ablative’) is indicated by means of a case marker which is variable in shape. Most Quechua II dialects have -manta (or reflexes of it). The Quechua I dialects use (reflexes of) -pita,-piq and -piqta (cf. section 3.2.3). There can hardly be any doubt that the element ta in -manta,-pita and -piqta is histo- rically related to the accusative marker -(k)ta,whereas man, pi (possibly also piq) can be traced to the allative and locative case markers, respectively. From a synchronic point of view, the inner structure of the ablative case marker is no longer relevant. Along with its main function of referring to separation, it can convey other meanings such as a topic of conversation or reflection (‘about’), or it can mark the second member in a comparison. There is no special case marker for the concept of motion through a space (‘perlative’). For this purpose the genitive is used in some Quechua I dialects, and a combination -n-ta in southern Peruvian Quechua II, as in Ayacucho:

(55) urqu-n-ta ri-n mountain-3P-AC go-3S ‘It goes through the mountains.’

Another case marker which plays a central role in Quechua grammar is -wan.It refers to the instrumental or comitative case (‘with’), but has the additional function of coordinating two noun phrases (‘and’). The coordinating function of -wan is compatible with other case markers. Interestingly, the instrumental and coordinative functions of -wan cannot be separated easily. Of two noun phrases in a coordinative construction only one must be marked with -wan,whereas the other need not be expressed lexically, as in the following example from Tarma:

(56) punu-ˇci-ma-ra-ygi xuk wamra-ta-wan sleep-CA-1O-PA-2S another girl-AC-IS ‘You made me sleep with another girl.’ (lit. ‘You made me and another girl sleep.’) 216 3 The Inca Sphere

The instrumental case marker is frequently used to identify the causee in causative constructions, in particular when the causative verb has a transitive base, as in (57) from Ayacucho:

(57) parqu-ˇci-nicakra-ta ˇ pedru-wan irrigate-CA-1S field-AC Peter-IS ‘I have the field irrigated by Peter.’ (Soto Ruiz 1979: 340)

There are a small number of other case markers, not found in every dialect of Quechua. A frequent marker is -rayku ‘for the sake of’. Likeness is expressed by means of a case marker -naw (-nuy,-nu:) in Quechua I. In Quechua II the notion of ‘like’ is expressed by means of the adverb (or postposition) hina. Another widespread marker is -pura ‘among’. As a consequence of their limited number, most Quechua case markers are multi- functional. For each a list of uses is required. Sequences of case markers occur to a limited degree. Most often they involve either the genitive marker (e.g. Ayacucho bisinti-pa-ta ‘to Vincent’s’,Parker 1969a: 44), or the instrumental marker -wan in its coordinative and comitative functions. In addition, the case markers -kama and -naw can also be found in combinations. In combination with specific categories of nominalisation, the case markers show a tendency towards acquiring specialised functions (see below). Nominal suffixation is not limited to case, number and personal reference. Some Quechua IIC dialects, such as Ayacucho, have diminutive and, occasionally, augmenta- tive affixes (Parker 1969a: 60):

(58) wasi-ˇca house-DI ‘little house’ (59) wasi-su31 house-AU ‘big house’

Virtually all Quechua dialects have nominal derivational suffixes referring to own- ership in a very broad sense. A very common suffix is -yuq (-ni-yuq after consonants, diphthongs and long vowels), to be translated as ‘owner of’, ‘having’, or ‘belonging to a place, a community’:

31 The suffix -su is said to be derived from the ending -azo in the local Spanish (e.g. perrazo ‘a huge dog’). If this is true, it is probably the sole morphological element borrowed from Spanish into Ayacucho Quechua. It has not been reported in other dialects. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 217

(60) wasi-yuq house-OS ‘house owner’, ‘someone who has a house’ Other frequent suffixes are -sapa ‘owner of many’, ‘owner of something big’ and -nti(n) ‘including’, ‘with...andall’. In some of the central Peruvian dialects (Hu´anuco, Pacaraos) a suffix -nnaq or -:naq conveys the meaning ‘without’, ‘owner of none’. It was also found in colonial Cuzco Quechua, and it may, therefore, be reconstructed for the common proto-language. Example (61) is from Pacaraos.

(61) wawi-:naq child-LA ‘childless’, ‘having no children’ Definiteness is not a general morphological category in the Quechua languages. How- ever, the Huanca dialects have developed an affixed definite article, comparable to those found in Rumanian or Swedish. The suffixal character of this marker of definiteness makes it unlikely that its existence could be explained through the contact with Span- ish. Formally, the Huanca definite marker has been derived from *ka-q, the agentive nominalised form of the verb ka- ‘to be’. In the Chongos Bajo subdialect of Huanca its reflexes are -ka: between consonants, -ka in word-final position and vowel length (-:) after non-final short vowels, e.g.:

(62) wamla-kuna-ka girl-PL-DF ‘the girls’ A characteristic feature of many Andean languages is the existence of a suffix referring to limitation, which marks a noun as trivial, limited in number or size, or close in distance to the speaker. The Quechua suffix which has this function, -ly a (-la, -la:-), may originally have been an independent suffix. It became part of the nominal morphology and, in Quechua I, also part of the verbal morphology. There are rather complex rules determining the location of -lya in relation to case, number and personal reference markers in nouns. Whatever the status of this suffix, its semantic interpretation is stable. In Andean Spanish it is characteristically reflected by the expressions no m´as or nada m´as ‘no(thing) more’. As in many other native American languages, the verb constitutes the richest part of the morphology in Quechua. Verbal morphology is contained within a general frame- work of formal restrictions, which are the following. All verb roots end in a vowel.32 They

32 In dialects that distinguish vowel length root-final low vowels can be long underlyingly. In verbs showing this characteristic length surfaces whenever the phonological context permits it, e.g. (Tarma) c.ˇa:-ˇsun ‘we shall reach’, but c.ˇa-nki ‘you (shall) reach’. 218 3 The Inca Sphere do not occur by themselves but must be followed by at least one suffix that qualifies the verb as a syntactically usable unit. Suffixes that can fulfil this function are per- sonal reference (subject) markers, whether or not in combination with tense and mood markers. Averbal root may be followed either by one, or by a string of affix extensions, which all share the formal peculiarity of ending in a vowel. Like roots, these extensions cannot occur word-finally but must be followed by one of the endings required to assure the syntactic use of the verb form.33 These root-extending affixes are commonly referred to as derivational or modal suffixes in the literature on Quechua. Although they are subject to shared formal restrictions (most of them are either CV or CCV), they represent a wide array of functions and meanings ranging from changes in syntactic valence and argument structure to subtle semantic and pragmatic shifts. As a rule, there is a one-to- one relation between form and function, but certain combinations of suffixes can acquire new and idiosyncratic meanings. Combinations of a verbal root and a derivational suffix may become lexicalised as idiomatic units. Tense, mood and personal reference markers occupy the final block in a Quechua verb form. Full verb forms must contain one of the suffixes in question or a combination of several. For the Quechua IIB and IIC dialects the number markers are to be added to the above list, as they operate in close connection with the personal reference markers. The place of tense and mood markers can also be occupied by nominalising and subordinating (switch-reference)affixes. In Quechua verbs personal reference is built on the same distinctions as for their nominal counterparts. It consists of a four-term system based on the inclusion of speaker and addressee. However, an additional dimension is brought in through the fact that not only the subject, but also a (human) object can be identified for person. Third-person objects remain unexpressed, as in (63) and (64) from Ayacucho:

(63) miku-nki-ˇcu eat-(3O-)2S-IR ‘Do (did) you eat?’, or ‘Do (did) you eat it?’ (64) riku-n-ku see-(3O-)3S-PL ‘They see (him/her/them/it).’

First-, second- and fourth-person objects that are expressed in the verb form can have either an indirect or a direct-object function depending on the semantics of the verb base. There are four endings involving subject reference only and an additional

33 The single exception may be the serial verb yal yi- ‘to exceed’ in Ecuadorian Quechua, which occurs uninflected in comparative constructions. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 219

Table 3.4 Subject conjugation in Ayacucho Quechua

Present Future Imperative

1 pers. subject wata-ni wata-saq 2 pers. subject wata-nki wata-nki wata-y 3 pers. subject wata-n wata-nqa wata-ˇcun 4 pers. subject wata-nˇcik wata-sun wata-sun

five combinations that involve object marking as well. These combinations were called transiciones (‘transitions’) by the Spanish colonial grammarians, a term still used in many of today’s traditional-style grammars.34 The subject endings are relatively stable throughout the paradigms referring to tense and mood. The imperative mood and the future tense both have special portmanteau endings. The Ayacucho Quechua subject paradigms of the verb wata- ‘to tie’ in table 3.4 illustrate this. Non-future, non-imperative subject endings resemble the nominal possessive endings. However, in Quechua IIC dialects, such as Ayacucho, first- and second-person subject endings differ from the possessive endings in all tenses of the indicative mood.

(65) wata-r(q)a-ni uma-y tie-PA-1S head-1P ‘I tied.’ ‘my head’ (66) wata-r(q)a-nki uma-yki tie-PA-2S head-2P ‘You tied.’ ‘your head’

In Quechua I there is no such difference between the first-person endings, and in many of these dialects the second-person subject ending coincides with the possessive ending in the past tenses. The examples (67) and (68) from northern Jun´ın illustrate this point:

(67) wata-r´a-: um´a-: tie-PA-1S head-1P ‘I tied.’ ‘my head’ (68) wata-r´a-y(ki) um´a-y(ki) tie-PA-2S head-2P ‘You tied.’ ‘your head’

34 According to our information, the term transiciones appeared for the first time in the anonymous grammar published by Antonio Ricardo in 1586. Starting from Gonz´alez Holgu´ın (1607), the transitions are subject to a numbering system, which is still in use here and there. This numbering system fails to distinguish between the combinations 3S-10 and 3S-40. 220 3 The Inca Sphere

Of the five endings that conjointly refer to a subject and an object (1S-2O, 2S-1O, 3S-1O, 3S-2O, 3S-4O) four consist of potentially discontinuous sequences of suffixes, the intervening element being either a tense marker, a nominaliser or a subordinator. The second component of these combined endings is always identical to one of the subject endings, although it need not convey the latter’s usual meaning. The shape of this second component varies in accordance with the tense, mood or nominalisation paradigm in which it occurs. The initial component in the combination remains the same in all paradigms, leaving aside predictable morphophonemic variation if any. When the initial component is -ma(:)- (in Quechua I, Pacaraos and Ferre˜nafe) or -wa- (in most of Quechua II), its function as a first-person object marker is transparent whenever the subject is second or third person. (The examples (69)–(74) are from Ayacucho Quechua.)

(69) muna-wa-nki want-1O-2S ‘You want me.’ (70) muna-wa-n want-1O-3S ‘He/she wants me.’

However, the first-person object marker -ma(:)-/-wa- can also co-occur with a fourth- person subject marker, in which case the result is a semantically irregular sequence referring to a third-person subject acting upon a fourth-person object.

(71) muna-wa-nˇcik want-1O-4S ‘He/she wants us.

The second-person subject ending can co-occur with an internal suffix -su- (Quechua I -suˇ -). The resulting combination refers to a third-person subject acting upon a second- person object.

(72) muna-su-nki want-3S.2O-2S ‘He/she wants you.’ The combinations 2S-1O, 3S-1O, 3S-2O and 3S-4O mentioned above are found both in Quechua I and in Quechua II dialects. The combination 1S-2O is a rather divergent case. If it exists at all at the morphological level, it is either indicated by means of the suffix -q or a reflex of it (in Quechua I), or by -yki (in most of Quechua II). For the future tense there is a special portmanteau ending common to most dialects (*-ˇsqayki > Ayacucho -s(q)ayki). 3.2 The Quechuan language family 221

(73) muna-yki want-1S.2O ‘I want you.’ (74) riku-s(q)ayki see-1S.2O.F ‘I shall see you.’

Several dialects situated at the periphery of the Quechua linguistic area have to a cer- tain extent regularised the paradigms relating to personal reference marking (Cajamarca, Ferrenafe, ˜ Bolivian Quechua and Santiago del Estero), or lost part or all of it (Ecuador). As a consequence of this regularising tendency, the suffix -su- became a straightforward second-person object marker in Ferre˜nafe (Taylor 1994). The same occurred in Santiago del Estero (Alderetes 1994), as illustrated in (75)–(76).

(75) tapu-su-ni ask-2O-1S ‘I ask you.’ (76) tapu-su-n-ku ask-2O-3S-PL ‘They ask you.’

In Quechua I number is indicated by means of derivational suffixes which are inserted between the root and the personal reference endings (cf. section 3.2.3). In southern Quechua I dialects there are several pluralisers, whose selection is determined by the presence of other suffixes, especially aspect suffixes. (The examples (77)–(80) are from Tarma Quechua.)

(77) wata-ba:ku-n tie-PL-3S ‘They tie (it).’ (without aspect marker) (78) wata-rga-ya-n tie-PL-PR-3S ‘They are tying (it).’ (with progressive aspect) (79) wata-ra-:ri-n tie-PF-PL-3S ‘They have tied (it).’ (with perfective aspect)

Normally, the internal pluralisers refer to the number of the subject, but incidentally they can also indicate the number of an object. Pluralisation of object may occur when both subject and object are explicitly marked in the verb form and the object is not 222 3 The Inca Sphere third person. Forms with an internal pluraliser and explicit object marking are therefore ambiguous.

(80) cay-la-taˇ ni-ba:ku-x lapa-y-ta that-DL-AC say-PL-1S.2O all-2P-AC ‘I say that to all of you.’

The Quechua IIC dialects use the same strategy for pluralising verbal personal refer- ence markers as is found in the nominal conjugation. It has the advantage of providing an easy way of distinguishing between number of subject and number of object. The pluraliser -cikˇ (-ˇcis)isreserved for second-person subjects and objects, whereas the plu- raliser -ku is used for first- and third-person subjects, as well as for first-person objects. (The examples (81)–(82) are from Ayacucho Quechua.)

(81) muna-su-nki-ku want-3S.2O-PL.3S ‘They want you.’ (82) muna-su-nki-ˇcik want-3S.2O-PL.2S ‘He/she/they want(s) you (plural).’

In forms such as (81) and (82) it is not possible to indicate morphologically that both the subject and the object of the verb are plural. As a rule, the indication of plurality of a first or second person is considered more essential than that of a third person. Ambiguity can be removed by the addition of a noun containing a plural marker. When plural marking is applied to first-person endings, the resulting forms refer to an exclusive first-person plural. These forms stand in contrast with the fourth-person category which can only denote an inclusive ‘we’. Ecuadorian Quechua, however, lost the distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural, as the original inclu- sive (fourth-person) developed into a general first-person plural combining both func- tions. As a result, the modern Ecuadorian personal reference system is based on a three-way person distinction and a two-way number distinction, as in most European languages. The Quechua finite verb permits a three-way mood distinction involving indicative, optative and imperative. The number of tense distinctions within the indicative mood can vary according to the dialects, the richest system (of seven tenses) being found in Ancash Quechua. The optative (also called conditional or potential) has two tenses in all dialects. There are no tense distinctions in the imperative. Nevertheless, a future-tense form which is not accompanied by an evidential suffix can be interpreted as a polite command or recommendation. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 223

Verbs that do not belong to any of the three mood options listed above are either subordinated or nominalised. Subordinate verb forms are marked for switch-reference and could well be considered as a fourth mood if it were not for their non-finite character. All Quechua dialects exhibit a sharp distinction between realised and non-realised events. The future tense refers to non-realised events, as do the imperative and the present optative. In the indicative mood, future tense is required for any event that takes place after the moment of speaking. All dialects have an unmarked or present tense and at least one past tense. In the unmarked present tense the subject personal reference endings are added to the verb stem directly. In the remaining tenses (except for the future), a tense-marking suffix precedes the subject endings. Additionally, most Quechua dialects have one or two compound tenses based on a combination of nominalisations and the auxiliary verb ka- ‘to be’. The most common marker for plain past tense can be reconstructed as *-rqa-.Itis illustrated in the following examples from Ayacucho Quechua, where it contrasts with a habitual past-tense form. The habitual past tense consists of the agentive nominalisation form in -q and the verb ‘to be’.

(83) miku-r(q)a-ni eat-PA-1S ‘I ate (it).’ (84) miku-q ka-ni eat-HB be-1S ‘I used to eat (it).’

In Ayacucho Quechua, as in several other dialects, there are good reasons for consid- ering the habitual past a separate tense. As the third-person subject form of the verb ‘to be’ in its copula function is regularly deleted, the pluralising suffix -ku is added directly to the nominalised form, thus emphasising the finite verb character of the construction. When combinations of subject and object markers occur, these are normally distributed over both components of the construction, as in (86) (Parker 1969a: 49).

(85) riku-q-ku see-HB-(be.3S-)-PL.3S ‘They used to see (him/her/it).’ (86) riku-su-q ka-nki see-3S.2O-HB be-2S ‘He used to see you.’

The existence of a special tense category denoting surprise or lack of previous aware- ness on the side of the speaker (cf. section 3.2.3) has become an areal phenomenon, 224 3 The Inca Sphere especially since it was borrowed into Andean Spanish. It has been conveniently labelled sudden discovery tense.35 With regard to Ayacucho Quechua, it is also referred to as the narrative past because it often denotes a plain past tense in narratives (ending -sqa). However, sudden discovery is not necessarily confined to the past. It may refer to the present, and even to the future, when the unpredictable outcome of an experiment is involved. Due to its range of meanings, the status of sudden discovery as a tense is some- what debatable. An English translation for the sudden discovery category is ‘it/he/she turned out (to be)’. Other tenses found in some of the dialects are a recent past (in Ancash Quechua) and a perfect comparable to the present perfect tense of English (e.g. in Pacaraos, see section 3.2.9). The two tenses of the optative refer to the possibility of an event in the near future, and to an event that has failed to take place in the past, respectively. Formally, they are alike, except for the fact that the latter is followed by the third-person past-tense form of the verb ‘to be’, kar(q)a,which in this case functions as a lexical past-tense marker. (The examples (87)–(88) are from Ayacucho Quechua.) (87) maqa-nki-man hit-2S-PO ‘You could hit (him/her).’ (88) maqa-nki-man ka-r(q)a hit-2S-PO be-3S.PA ‘You could have hit him/her (but you didn’t).’ Subordinate verb forms are morphologically marked as such in Quechua. They nor- mally refer to events which are either prior to, or simultaneous with the main event in the sentence. Although the exact nature of the relation between the two verbs (cause, condition, temporal background) is left undetermined, a further specification can be obtained through the addition of aspect markers and independent suffixes. The addition of the independent suffix -pas (-pis,-si)‘even’, ‘also’ adds a concessive meaning to the subordinate verb. A progressive aspect marker indicates simultaneousness; a negation in combination with the independent suffix -raq ‘still’, ‘first’ denotes previousness of the main event (‘before ...ing’). In some dialects, borrowed Spanish conjunctions (espe- cially si ‘if’) may precede a subordinate verb form.36 The exact semantic interpretation

35 The term ‘sudden discovery tense’ is from Adelaar (1977: 94). In the linguistic literature similar categories, as in Turkish for instance, have been referred to as the ‘inferential past’ (Comrie, personal communication). 36 Subordinate verb forms have often been interpreted as cases of nominalisation. There is a good argument for not following this line. Although direct objects preceding a nominalised verb form may occur without the accusative case marker -(k)ta, this is never the case with subordinate verb forms. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 225 of a subordinate verb is to a high degree dependent on the meaning of the main verb which it accompanies. The following sentence, taken from a popular legend concerning the town of Tapo, near Tarma, illustrates this fairly well:

(89) manaciwaku ˇ pla:nu-nˇci-ta aspi-pti-n-qa tapu-m limaq ka-n-man ka-ra not blackbird map-4P-AC erase-DS-3S-TO Tapo-AF Lima be-3S-PO be-3S.PA ‘If the blackbird had not erased our map, Tapo would have been Lima (viz. the nation’s capital).’

The main point of interest in relation to subordinate verbs in Quechua is the existence of an explicit switch-reference mechanism. Most Quechua dialects have a subordination marker, such as -pti-,which indicates a change of subject. The use of this marker must be accompanied by an indication of the grammatical person of the subject. This is understandable because the subjects of the two verbs involved are not the same. In Ecuadorian Quechua, however, different subject marking is not accompanied by any personal reference morphology (cf. the case of Tsafiki in section 2.17). The verb form shows that the subjects are different but not to what grammatical person they belong. The Ecuadorian different subject marker -(x)pi may have been derived from a combination of the agentive nominalisation in *-q with the locative case marker -pi, rather than from *-pti- (in spite of the resemblance). The shape of the same subject marker differs according to the dialects (cf. sec- tion 3.2.3). The most common markers are -r (-l)inQuechua I and -spaˇ -(-spa)in Quechua II. Switch-reference is of utmost importance for the structure of Quechua discourse. After a first introduction, the main protagonists in a narrative are not again explicitly mentioned but are expected to be identified through a correct interpretation of the switch- reference forms. In order to help this process of interpretation, a subordinate verb which resumes the content of the previous sentence is often used to introduce a new sentence. The presence of switch-reference markers permits the hearer to establish whether or not the subject of the previous sentence is still in focus. Consider the following passage in a narrative from San Pedro de Cajas (Adelaar 1977: 408–9):

(90) cawra-q’ˇ na:-ˇsicaka-ra-ya-n. ˇ then-TO already-HS become.dark-CN-PR-3S. caka-ru-pti-n-ˇˇ si na: laso:ˇcu-nuy yapayc ˇ.a-ru-n alqu-q’ kurba:ta-ku-ˇs’. become.dark-PF-DS-HS already at.eight-CP again arrive-PF-3S dog-TO necktie-V-SN ‘At that time, they say, it was already getting dark. When it had become dark, at about eight o’clock, the dog arrived again, wearing a necktie.’ 226 3 The Inca Sphere

Additional subordination markers occur in some dialects. The ending -stinˇ (or -stin) indicates simultaneousness with same subjects. Some Quechua I dialects have a negative subordinator, -nni or -:ni; cf. also Pacaraos Quechua miku:ni ‘without eating’. Nominalisation has a place at the core of Quechua grammar.37 Nominalised verbs in Quechua exhibit the syntactic and morphological characteristics of nouns, while re- taining a substantial part of the complex verbal morphology as well. Externally, they can be marked for case (as nouns are), whereas internally they can take case-marked complements (as verbs do). Personal reference markers are either verbal (when an ob- ject is involved) or nominal (when a possessive or pseudo-possessive relation to the event is expressed). With nominalised verbs the subject and possessive markers are for- mally the same and cannot always be distinguished on the basis of their function and meaning. The flexibility of the Quechua nominalisation system is enhanced by its faculty to combine with case affixes and, to a lesser extent, aspect markers. Potentially, each combination of a nominalisation with a particular case category yields a specific class of complement clauses. These configurations complement the rather limited possibilities in terms of semantic specification that are provided by the subordinative (switch-reference) categories. Quechua dialects differ in the number of nominalisers they use, but a minimal system of four nominalisations is found throughout the family. One category of nominalisation (ending -y) refers to the event in abstracto and, occasionally, to its result or a generic ob- ject in the widest sense. It has the characteristics of an infinitive.Personal reference with infinitives is typically nominal (pseudo-possessive), and there are no tense distinctions, as in (Ayacucho):

(91) miku-y kawsa-y eat-IF live-IF ‘to eat’, ‘food’ ‘to live’, ‘agricultural products’

The infinitive is frequently used with the accusative case marker -(k)ta and an auxiliary verb. Verbs such as ati(pa)-‘to be able’, muna-‘to want’, yaˇc. a-/yaˇca- ‘to know how to’ and (the reflexes of) qal ya.yku- (QI)/qal ya.ri- (QII) ‘to begin’ are frequently used as auxiliaries, as illustrated by (92)–(93) from Tarma:

(92) rima-y-ta xala.yu-ru-n speak-IF-AC begin-PF-3S ‘He began to speak.’

37 Foradetailed study in a generative context see Lefebvre and Muysken (1988). 3.2 The Quechuan language family 227

Although grammatically the infinitive functions as the object of the auxiliary verb, the resulting construction as a whole has several characteristics of a . Subject and object markers may be distributed over both components of the con- struction. For instance, the ventive (hither) marker -mu-may appear on the auxiliary verb, although from a semantic point of view it belongs to the event denoted by the infinitive.

(93) yarba-y-ta xala.ya-mu-ra38 descend-IF-AC begin-H-3S.PA ‘He began to descend’. ‘He began to come down’.

In Ecuador, the -y infinitive was replaced by the instrumental nominalisation in -na (see below). It has been retained, however, for the exclusive purpose of the auxiliary construction just outlined. Forms that result from other nominalisation strategies refer to participants or items involved in the event denoted by the base verb. They can also refer to a place, time or means, or to the fact of the event itself. The nominalisation in -q is usually referred to as the agentive. Agentive forms are subject-centred. They refer to the subject of an event denoted by the base verb. Tense distinctions are not relevant. The agentive can be used to construct relative clauses in which the subject is identical to the antecedent. With verbs of motion it may indicate a goal. Agentive nominalisation also constitutes the basis of the habitual past tense (see above). (The examples (94)–(95) are from Ayacucho Quechua.)

(94) puklya-q play-AG ‘one who plays’, ‘a player’ (95) puklya-q ri-saq play-AG go-1S.F ‘I shall go and play.’

Forms resulting from instrumental nominalisation in -na are everything but subject- centred. They refer to events not yet realised. As such, they may either denote a means, a place, a time in the future, an object to be affected, the necessity of an event, or plainly the fact that it will occur. Instrumentals are frequently used in relative clauses in which the subject is not identical to the antecedent. When used by itself, the instrumental

38 Actually, the root ‘to descend’ is yarbu-. The sentence is a rare example of a case in which a vowel modification rule (u > a)iscopied from an auxiliary verb onto the infinitive which it accompanies. The alternative option in which the infinitive retains its original vowel u is more common (cf. Adelaar 1977: 117). 228 3 The Inca Sphere nominalisation may refer to an obligation. Examples (96)–(99) from Tarma Quechua illustrate different uses of instrumental (future) nominalisation.

(96) xu-x miku-na-n-guna-ta give-HB eat-FN-3P-PL-AC ‘They used to give (them) their victuals.’ (lit. ‘their things to eat’) (97) mana-m musya-ra-ˇcu yanu-ku-na ga-na-ta not-AF guess-3S.PA-NE cook-CU-FN be-FN-AC ‘He did not suspect that there would be a way (means) of cooking them.’ 39 (98) cayˇ xiˇsya-y-xa asta wanu-na-n-gama nuna-ˇc.u:-xa ga-n that be.ill-IF-TO until die-FN-3S-LI man-L-TO be-3S ‘That illness remains in a man until (the moment) he dies.’ (99) aywa-na-: go-FN-1S ‘I must go.’

One of the most important applications of the instrumental nominalisation is its com- bination with the benefactive case suffix -paq. This combination refers to a purpose clause, as in (Ayacucho):

(100) yanapa-wa-na-yki-paq help-1O-FN-2S-B ‘...so that you might help me’

Alongside -na,anarchaic form -nqa was preserved in colonial Cuzco Quechua. In Ecuadorian Quechua, a reflex of *-nqa is still used today in the local equivalent of the -na + -paq construction just described (for an example see section 3.2.8 on Salasaca Quechua). Interestingly, this construction has become involved in an extension of the switch-reference system. It is now used for purpose clauses in which the subject is the same as that of the main clause. The different subject function has been taken over by the original third-person imperative ending -cunˇ .Aswementioned before, Ecuadorian subordinate verbs lack personal reference marking. (For a parallel situation in Tsafiki, see section 2.17.) The applications of the stative nominalisation in -sqaˇ (-sqa, -ˇska,-saˇ ) are largely the same as those of its instrumental counterpart, the difference being the fact that statives refer to events that are realised either previously, or simultaneously with re- gard to the main event. As a rule, forms resulting from nominalisation in -sqaˇ are not

39 The particle asta (from Spanish hasta ‘until’) is often found in combination with the limitative case marker -gama (-kama in most other dialects), which has essentially the same meaning. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 229

Table 3.5 Valency-changing suffixes in Quechua

-ˇci- ‘causative, permissive transitiviser’ (adds a new agent argument) -ku- ‘reflexive’ -na(ku)- ‘reciprocal’ -ka(:)- (QI) ‘medio-passive’, ‘no control’ -na(:)- (QI), -naya- (QII) ‘experiencer’ (transfers a need or desire to an object) -pa(:)- (QI), -pa- (QII) ‘applicative transitiviser’ (adds a new object) -ra(:)- (QI), -raya- (QII) ‘state or prolonged event’ -wˇsi- (QI), -ysi- (QII) ‘accompanied action transitiviser’ (to help someone perform an action)

subject-centred. (Nevertheless, subject-centred statives do occur sporadically with in- transitive bases.) Example (101) from Tarma illustrates the use of a stative participle.

(101) lapa-n waxta-ˇc.u xampi-nˇci-guna-m kanan-xa xunxa-ˇsa all-3P slope-L medicinal.plant-4P-PL-AF now-TO forget-SN ‘On all the slopes our medicinal plants are now forgotten.’

Stative participles are frequently found in compound tenses, where they occasionally acquire an active (subject-centred) meaning. This is the case of the experiential past in Pacaraos Quechua, illustrated in (102).

(102) rika-pu-ˇsq´a-s(u) ka-nki see-LS-SN-IR be-2S ‘Have you ever seen it?’ ‘Did you ever get to see it?’

The derivational or modal affixes that operate as extensions of the verb root together constitute the richest and most complex part of Quechua morphology. As we anticipated, they make up a very heterogeneous set from a semantic and a functional point of view. Some can function as valency-changing affixes; see table 3.5. The following examples illustrate the use of these suffixes. The examples (110a, b), illustrating the suffix -ysi-, are from the Ayacucho dialect; the others exemplify the dialect of San Pedro de Cajas in northern Jun´ın.

(103) a. wanu- ‘to die’ wanu-ˇci- ‘to kill’, ‘to cause to die’ b. maqa- ‘to beat’ maqa-ˇci- ‘to make (someone) beat’ ‘to have (someone) beaten’ (104) a. mayla- ‘to wash’ mayla-ku- ‘to wash oneself’ b. wanu- ‘to die’ wanu-ˇci-ku- ‘to kill oneself’, ‘to commit suicide’ 230 3 The Inca Sphere

(105) a. maqa- ‘to beat’ maqa-naku- ‘to beat each other’ b. maqa-ˇci-naku- ‘to have each other beaten’ (106) a. miku- ‘to eat’ mika-na(:)- ‘to provoke hunger’ (impersonal subject) b. mika-na-y ‘hunger’ (107) a. punu- ‘to sleep’ punu-ka(:)- ‘to fall asleep’ b. laqa- ‘to stick’ laqa-ka(:)- ‘to get stuck to someone’ (108) a. ayku- ‘to laugh’ ayku-pa(:)- ‘to laugh at’, ‘to smile at’ b. muna- ‘to want’ muna-pa(:)- ‘to desire’, ‘to long for’ (109) a. wila- ‘to warn’ wila-ra(:)- ‘to be in a state of having been warned’ ‘to be in a state of having announced’ b. rirka- ‘to look’ rirka-ra(:)- ‘to observe’, ‘to watch’ c. hita- ‘to throw’ hita-ra(:)- ‘to lie down’ (110) a. apa- ‘to carry’ apa-ysi- ‘to help someone carry’ b. puri- ‘to walk’ puri-ysi- ‘to accompany’

Two derivational extensions are closely linked with the personal reference system. The ventive or cislocative suffix -mu- (‘hither’) either denotes a psychological approach experienced by the speaker, or any motion directed towards the location of the speaker. In this function -mu-isobligatory to the extent that it cannot be left out without arousing the suggestion of a motion away from or neutral with regard to the speaker’s location. In narratives the notion of ‘speaker’s location’ may acquire a derived interpretation, as it can represent a location which the speaker has in mind, viz. a place focused in the narrated event, as in (Ayacucho):

(111) apa-mu-y apa-y carry-H-2S.IM carry-2S.IM ‘Bring it (here)!’ ‘Take it away!’

If -mu-isfound in a verb which cannot be interpreted as a verb of motion, the action is supposed to be carried out at an indicated place and to have consequences for the speaker. The suggestion may be that of a circular effect which emanates from the speaker; example (112) is from Tarma Quechua:

(112) cay-ˇˇ c.u:-mi ulxu ga-y-ta yaˇc.a-ka-mu-nxa that-L-AF man be-IF-AC know-RF-H-3S.F ‘(I will send my son to the Army.) There he will learn how to be a man.’

The benefactive suffix -pu-isused in many Quechua dialects, in combination with personal reference markers otherwise referring to object, for the purpose of encoding a 3.2 The Quechuan language family 231 beneficiary, as in Ayacucho (113):

(113) cura-pu-saykiˇ keep-BN-1S.2O.F ‘I shall keep it for you.’

In Cuzco Quechua, -pu- has acquired the additional function of a reversive (back to original state) or an itive (motion away from the scene). In the latter case, it functions as the semantic opposite of -mu-. Aspect systems are more or less well developed in virtually all Quechua dialects. In Quechua IIC, the progressive aspect marker is reconstructed as *-ˇcka- (possibly from *-ˇc. ka-). It is still found as such in Ayacucho Quechua, as well as (very seldom) in the seventeenth-century variety of Quechua used in the manuscript of Huarochir´ı (akin to Quechua IIB). Modern reflexes of the progressive aspect marker are Cuzco -sya-or-saˇ -, Bolivian Quechua -sa- and Santiago del Estero -skaˇ -. The progressive aspect marker in Quechua I dialects is either -yka(:)- or its reflex -ya(:)-.InEcuadorian Quechua, progressive aspect meaning is conveyed by -ku- (also -xu-), originally a marker of the reflexive category. More complex aspect systems are found in Quechua I, in particular, in the Huanca dialects and in northern Jun´ın (including Tarma). In these dialects, reflexes of the suffix *-rqu- (-ru-, -ʔ(lu)-, -:(lu)-) operate as a perfective40 counterpart of the progressive marker -ya(:)-. Both aspect categories are mutually exclusive and stand in opposition to the unmarked forms which have a habitual or general truth value. In the dialects of the province of Tarma, aspect marking is mutually exclusive with negation at the sentence level. In some northern Quechua I dialects (Hu´anuco, eastern Ancash) a suffix -ski- occupies a place in the aspect system comparable to that of *-rqu-insouthern Quechua I. Directional affixes referring to the semantic categories ‘outward’ (*-rqu-), ‘inward’ (*-yku-), ‘upward’ (*-rku-) and ‘downward’ (*-rpu-) can be reconstructed, at least for Quechua I, on the basis of such word sets as yarqu- ‘to leave’, yayku- ‘to enter’, yarku- ‘to climb’ and yarpu- ‘to descend’. The suffixes -rku- and -rpu- are still used productively to express direction in many varieties of Quechua I. The suffixes -r(q)u- and -y(k)u- are used in most Quechua dialects but have acquired new functions. The remaining derivational extensions mainly bring about semantic additions to the verb root, often resulting in lexicalised verb–suffix combinations. Some semantic addi- tions are straightforward, for instance, that of -(y)kaˇc. a(:)- (QI)/ -(y)kaˇca- (QII), which conveys the meaning ‘up and down’, ‘back and forth’ or ‘hesitatingly’. But the semantic

40 The use of the perfective aspect in southern Quechua I is reminiscent of the use of perfective verbs in Slavic languages such as Russian. 232 3 The Inca Sphere additions of other verbal extensions are elusive and difficult to define. The meaning of -ri- ‘inchoative’ is a case in point. Additionally, some of the suffixes with straightforward semantic applications have derived meanings, which belong to the pragmatic level and are often hard to translate. The order in which the verbal extension suffixes appear when combined is basi- cally fixed. Some combinations of suffixes, however, are so infrequent that it would seem rather artificial to speak of fixed-order classes. Certain valency-changing suf- fixes (particularly, causative -ciˇ - and the reflexive and reciprocal markers) tend to dis- play different order options with corresponding differences in interpretation. In other cases, the existence of different order options may be of no semantic consequence (see, for instance, the discussion of Ayacucho Quechua verbal suffix order in Parker 1969a). When the order position of a suffix is fixed, as is the case of pluralisers and aspect markers in Quechua I, for instance, it need not reflect the logical semantic build-up of the verb form as such. In what follows, the Tarma Quechua forms (77)– (79) are expanded with the causative marker -ˇci-. The ordering of the suffixes is quite unexpected.

(114) wata-ˇci-ba:ku-n tie-CA-PL-3S ‘They have it tied.’ (115) wata-rga-ya:-ˇci-n tie-PL-PR-CA-3S ‘They are having it tied.’ (116) wata-ra-:ri-ˇci-n tie-PF-PL-CA-3S ‘They (eventually) had it tied.’

In the examples (114)–(116) the presence of an aspect marker relocates the pluraliser to the left of the causative suffix. The exact location of the pluraliser is furthermore determined by the choice of the aspect marker. It follows the perfective but precedes the progressive aspect marker, even though the two aspect markers make up a mutually exclusive set (as we saw before). An interesting but widely neglected aspect of Quechua morphology is the existence of several types of root reduplication both in the verbal and in the nominal sphere. In Tarma Quechua, different types of verbal reduplication refer to simulated action (‘to act as if’), frustrated intention (‘to try without success’), eagerness (‘cannot wait to do something’) and resulting condition. Nominal reduplication may denote dispersed units, distributed qualities, pronoun plurality, ‘every’ and again resulting condition. An example of nominal reduplication denoting a resulting condition based on the 3.2 The Quechuan language family 233 adjective rakta ‘thick’ is:

(117) rakta-y=rakta-y-ta-m xagu-ra-ya-: thick-IF=thick-IF-AC-AF clothe-ST-PR-1S ‘I am dressed warmly.’

3.2.7 Characteristics of the Quechua lexicon Most modern Quechua dialects have assimilated relatively large amounts of borrowed vocabulary from Spanish. At the same time, however, a comparison with early colonial texts shows a remarkable continuity in the native lexicon. Most lexical items that were in use in the sixteenth century are still in use today. The loans have enriched the Quechua lexicon, rather than substituted obsolete native terms. Only in certain culturally sensitive domains, such as religion, social and political organisation, and kinship terms, has the original native lexicon become much reduced. An interesting peculiarity is the rather limited number of native roots in many do- mains of Quechua vocabulary. Quechua roots can have a wide spectrum of semantic applications, leaving the impression of a certain lack of semantic differentiation. This is counterbalanced by the richness of the derivational morphology, which is available for the expression of all sorts of semantic distinctions in an ad hoc way. Quechua narrators have no stylistic prejudice against repetitions of same vocabulary items within a given discourse. This fact may have slowed down the formation of new vocabulary in the language. The area in which the aforementioned scarcity of items is most conspicuous is that of the verbs. Quechua verb roots are not formally categorised for the distinction transitive– intransitive. Several verb roots, such as paki- ‘to break’ or tikra- ‘to turn’, can be used both transitively and intransitively.Disambiguation, if necessary,is left to the derivational morphology and the syntax. A typical example of root economy in Quechua is the absence of a basic verb for the notion ‘to kill’. In order to express this notion, there is no alternative but to use the regular causative derivation of the verb ‘to die’, wanyu-ˇci-. That wanyu-ˇci-isstill synchronically a derived base is corroborated by the potential insertion of additional affixes between the root and the causative marker -ciˇ -. Also from a semantic point of view, wanyu-ˇci- preserves its original composite structure. It can be interpreted not only as a causative ‘to kill’, but also as a permissive ‘to let die’. On the other hand, Quechua has several non-composite roots denoting specific ways of killing, for instance, (Ayacucho) sipi- ‘to murder’, naka- ‘to butcher’. Aremarkable case of low semantic differentiation is the verb of communication nyi- (ni-inmost contemporary dialects). Although it is usually associated with the meaning ‘to say’, it covers a wide range of interpretations varying from ways of saying 234 3 The Inca Sphere

(‘to answer’, ‘to ask’, ‘to tell’) to ways of thinking (‘to ponder’, ‘to intend’, ‘to consider as’). The verb nyi- is the only Quechua verb that can and must be accompanied by a direct quotation, which accordingly can refer either to a spoken message, or to the content of a thought. Its gerund form (QIIC ni-spa,QIni-r)regularly marks the end of a direct quotation, regardless of whether the main verb in the sentence is also nyi- or some other verb of communication. The wide range of semantic interpretations covered by nyi- has probably favoured the introduction (especially with bilingual speakers) of Spanish loan verbs referring to particular subinterpretations of nyi-, e.g. pinsa- ‘to think’ or kontesta- ‘to answer’. Although the noun inventory of Quechua is less frugal than the verbal lexicon, it was not free of conspicuous gaps that may have stimulated the introduction of loan words. An interesting example is the word for ‘animal’, Spanish animal, one of the earliest loans from that language into Quechua. Apparently, Quechua speakers lacked a generic term referring to any animal, but would use enumerations of specific animals, followed by ima ‘et cetera’, or cover terms referring to all creatures (including men) living in a particular geographical environment or climatic zone. In Quechua morphology and syntax, there are mechanisms for the formation of ab- stract terms, but such terms are not often used. For instance, instead of referring to ‘heroic deeds’ in general, Quechua speakers would rather speak of the fact that a partic- ular person acted heroically on a particular occasion. Institutional terms were also few in number. Typical concepts such as ‘war’ or ‘peace’ are hard to translate into Quechua. Instead of saying ‘a war breaks out’, traditional Quechua speakers would rather say ‘an enemy has appeared’. Like many verbs, nouns may also cover an unusually wide range of semantic interpre- tations. A typical example is the word for ‘town’ (Quechua I marka, Quechua II l yaqta). It refers to any geographically defined community of people, ranging from a tiny hamlet to a nation. Originally, the term l yaqta also referred to the sanctuary that secured the social cohesion of the community. Curiously, Quechua speakers have not felt the need to borrow Spanish terms in order to narrow down the meaning of marka/l yaqta.Apar- allel case is paˇca,which can mean ‘world’, ‘earth’, ‘space’, ‘time’, or ‘circumstances’, depending on the context. Quechua often makes no formal distinction between a group and its members; the word ayl yu, for instance, refers to a traditional Andean lineage group but also to anyone of its individual members. In a modern context this same word is frequently interpreted either as ‘family’, or as ‘a relative’. Names of places and terms referring to topological conditions in general are often used to denote people or any other living beings associated with these places, without the addition of a particular suffix. For instance, the ancient Colla (qul ya) people had their capital at a town called Hatun Colla (hatun qul ya) ‘Great Colla’, near modern . In Pacaraos the local autonym paqraw is used for the village, 3.2 The Quechuan language family 235 as well as for its inhabitants. In Ayacucho Quechua the term sal yqakuna (plural of sal yqa ‘high altitude zone’) is used to denote all living creatures that have their habitat in that area. In contrast to the general tendency of economy, the Quechua lexicon is remarkably rich in some particular semantic domains, such as verbs referring to forms of carrying and holding. In Ayacucho Quechua, the verb roots amu- ‘to hold in the mouth’, apta- ‘to hold or carry a handful’, asta- ‘to transport (going back and forth)’, marqa-‘tocarry in the arms’, mil yqa- ‘to hold on the lap’, ‘to carry in a skirt’, puqtu- ‘to carry with both hands’, qipi- ‘to carry on the back’ and wantu- ‘to carry among four (as of a litter)’ all refer to ways of carrying or holding, in addition to the general terms for ‘to carry’, apa-, and ‘to hold’, hapi-. Another richly differentiated area is verbs referring to postures of the body. Kinship terminology in Quechua distinguishes gender of owner, rather than gender of referent. The classic examples are the words for ‘child’, ‘son’ or ‘daughter’. These words differ according to whether the relationship to the father or the mother is referred to (curiˇ for ‘father’schild’; wawa for ‘mother’schild’; only Cuzco Quechua and Ecuado- rian Quechua have separate terms for ‘father’s daughter’: ususi and uˇsi, respectively). In the case of siblings, both the gender of the owner and of the referent are differentiated (Ayacucho Quechua wawqi ‘brother’s brother’, turi ‘sister’s brother’, nyanya ‘sister’s sister’, pani ‘brother’s sister’). On the other hand, in the terms for ‘father’ and ‘mother’ only the referent is differentiated for gender. The elaborate, traditional kinship termi- nology of Quechua became reduced as a result of the introduction of Christianity and European-style family relations. The once socially and ritually important distinctions between woman’s relatives and man’s relatives have all but disappeared. The Quechua numeral system is decimal. The basic numerals do not have a trans- parent etymology. There are two competing terms for ‘four’, which are distributed geographically; for all the other numerals a single term is available, although the shape of the term for ‘one’ is subject to variation. The Quechua numerals (in a reconstructed form) are huk/suk/ˇsuk ‘one’, iˇskay ‘two’, kimsa ‘three’, tawa (Quechua II) or c.ˇusku (Quechua I) ‘four’, piˇcqa ‘five’, suqta ‘six’, qanˇc. is ‘seven’, pusaq ‘eight’, isqun ‘nine’, c.ˇunka ‘ten’, paˇc. ak ‘hundred’ and waranqa ‘thousand’. Unit numbers are added to larger entities by means of the ending -(ni)yuq ‘having’, as in c.ˇunka iˇskay-ni-yuq ‘twelve’. Spatial deictic systems in Quechua either consist of two, or of three terms. The proximate and non-proximate terms kay ‘this’ and cayˇ ‘that’ (or their reflexes) are found throughout all dialects. The Quechua IIB dialects lack a third term, ‘that one over there’, which is present in a variable form in the other dialects (Ayacucho, Tarma wak; Ancash taqay; Bolivian Quechua haqay, etc.). Pacaraos Quechua is exceptional in having a six- term system, in which differences of altitude play a role (cf. section 3.2.9). Although spatial deictics can be used anaphorically, their use in relation to time is limited. For 236 3 The Inca Sphere instance, the proximate spatial deictic kay must be replaced by the root kanan or kunan (‘now’, ‘present-day’) when temporal reference is in order (Cuzco Quechua kunan p’unˇcay ‘this day’, ‘today’). Interrogative pronouns vary according to type of refer- ent (person, thing, place, time, etc.) even when used attributively (e.g. Tarma Quechua pi: nuna ‘which person?’, pi: ‘who?’; may marga ‘which town?’, may ‘what place?’; but ima ‘what?’). Almost all Quechua dialects have complex deictic expressions that fulfil the function of independent pronouns (e.g. Huanca may-ˇc. u kay-ˇc. u:-pis ‘everywhere’, literally ‘anywhere and here as well’; Tarma ima ayga ‘all kinds of’, literally ‘what and how many’). There are interrogative and deictic verbs denoting expressions such as ‘to do what?, ‘to say what?’, ‘to act thus’. Quechua has root names for the basic colours ‘black’ yana,‘white’ yuraq,‘grey’uqi, ‘red to brown’ puka and ‘yellow’ qil yu. The words for ‘blue’ (QIIB San Mart´ın ankaˇs; QIIC Cochabamba ankaˇs, anqas) and ‘green’ (QIIC Cuzco, Cochabamba q ’umir)have been replaced by Spanish loan terms in many of the dialects. Compounds in Quechua resemble hierarchically organised noun phrases in that they are always head-final. Since such noun phrases may lack internal case marking, it is not easy to establish criteria applying exclusively to compounds. However, the existence of a few rare cases of phonetic adjustment and semantic specialisation constitute unequivocal evidence that Quechua indeed has compounds, e.g. Tarma Quechua xarabaˇc. a ‘naked’ (from xara ‘skin’ and paˇc. a ‘belly’) and paˇcamanka ‘earth-oven’ (from paˇca ‘earth’ and manka ‘pot’). Synonyms play an important role in Quechua folk poetry and song texts, due to the practice of difrasismo,awidespread stylistic device in native American languages. Some words that are frequently found in poetry have canonical synonym counterparts, as is the case of kuya- ‘to love’, ‘to pity’. It is frequently resumed by means of its near synonym wayl yu-, a verb which is seldom used outside that context. However, native synonyms are scarce due to the general paucity of Quechua vocabulary items. Therefore, already in the seventeenth century, synonyms were taken from the official Quechua language to match dialect forms (Itier 1992). In a modern context, Spanish is the language that provides synonyms when no Quechua items are available, as is illustrated by the following lines of a song interpreted by the well-known charango41 player Jaime Guardia from Ayacucho. (The verb diqa- [dex.a], from Spanish dejar, has the same meaning as the native saqi- ‘to leave’, ‘to abandon’.)

(118) kay kuya-q-ni-ki-ta saqi-rpari-spa-yki kay waylyu-q-ni-ki-ta diqa-rpari-spa-yki this love-AG-EU-2P-AC leave-LB-SS-2S ‘...leaving behind the one here who loves you’ (twice)

41 The charango is a musical instrument resembling a small guitar. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 237

Onomatopoeic roots make up an important part of the Quechua lexicon and contribute greatly to the richness of expression of the language. Unfortunately, onomatopoeic words are often not considered as real words, a reason why they are not included in most of the dictionaries. For instance, in northern Jun´ın Quechua (San Pedro de Cajas) we find: ha:kal=ha:kal-ya- ‘to pant’, parara- ‘the sound of engines’, pirpi-l ya=pirpi-r ‘moving like an arrow’, puqlulu- ‘the sound of heavy rain’, qiˇc. iˇc. i- ‘the sound of static electricity’, quˇc. uˇc. a- ‘the sound of gnashing teeth’, qur=qur-ya- ‘to coo (as pigeons do)’, and many, many more.

3.2.8 Asketch of an Ecuadorian Quechua dialect (Salasaca) Salasaca is a group of comunidades in the province of Tungurahua, central Ecuador, that together form a clearly defined ethnic group, the Salasacas. This group is recognised as separate from neighbouring groups, and is often claimed to be a direct descendant of a community of Bolivian mitimaes in the popular tradition. However, the dialect spoken in Salasaca, though characteristic, closely resembles that of neighbouring groups in Tungurahua and the province of Cotopaxi. The Quechua dialects of Ecuador are morphologically, syntactically and lexically quite similar. The main differences lie in a number of morphophonological processes that have affected the affixes in particular. While a southern dialect such as Ca˜nar is rather conservative, Salasaca Quechua has undergone most of the processes involved. We will illustrate different morphosyntactic features of Ecuadorian Quechua, as well as the phonological characteristics of central dialects such as Salasaca Quechua, with a presentation and analysis of a folk tale, Miˇzi aˇcku diablomunda ‘The terrible devil dog’.

1. nyawba-ga kawsa-ˇskasux ˇ colo ˇ kay sixsiwayku nyan-bi first-TO live-SD.3S one cholo this Sigsihuaico road-L ‘In earlier days a white man lived on the road to Sigsihuaico.’ 2. colo-gaˇ awatero ga-ˇska cholo-TO water.guard be-SD.3S ‘This man was a water guard.’ 3. suxˇ phunˇza yaku larka thuni-ˇska-da hapi-rga one day water ditch cave.in-SN-AC catch-PA.3S ‘One day the irrigation ditch caved in.’

While in sentences 2 and 3 we have verb-final word order, the regular pattern in most Quechua varieties, sentence 1 shows a different pattern with the verb following the topic. Case marking is constituent final: locative -bi in sentence 1 and accusative -da in 3. We notice the use of a -skaˇ tense glossed as ‘sudden discovery’ in sentences 1 and 2, followed by past-tense -rga in 3. For the third person there is no overt subject agreement in either 238 3 The Inca Sphere past tense, but there is in the present. Appositive nominal expressions such as sixsiwayku nyan in sentence 1 and yaku larka in sentence 3 are also head-final. Sentence 2 contains an example of the copula, ga-inthis variety of Quechua (ka-inPeruvian Quechua). In sentence 3 there is a case of a nominalisation, very frequent in Quechua, with the resultative nominaliser -skaˇ (homophonous with the tense marker).

4. ci-mundaˇ ni-ˇska that-AB say-SD.3S ‘Therefore he said:’ 5. ima-munda larka-ga thuni-gu-n-ˇza kay sixsiwaykucaka-bi-ga ˇ what-AB ditch-TO cave in-PR-3S-DL this Sigsihuaico bridge-L-TO ‘“Why is the ditch at the Sigsihuaico bridge caving in?”’

We notice in sentence 5 that question words tend to be fronted, and that ele- ments marked with topic -ga can occur both at the beginning and at the end of the utterance.

6. cayˇ zuˇ ˇ zu tutacapa-ki-ga, ˇ aˇcku-ga rumi siki-bi siri-gu-ˇska ni-n that tender night watch-DS-TO, dog-TO stone bottom-L lie-PR-SD.3S say-3S ‘That evening while he was keeping watch, there was a dog lying asleep at the bottom of a stone, they say.’ 7. yaku-ga thuni-ˇsa gulun munda-ˇska water-TO cave.in-SS boink heap.up-SD.3S ‘Pouring in, the water came down with a bang.’

In sentence 6 we have the different subject adverbial subordination marker -ki (< *-kpi,Peruvian Quechua -pti), and in 7 the same subject marker -saˇ (<*-ˇspa). In sentence 6 furthermore, we notice the progressive marker -gu- (< *-ku-, Southern Peruvian Quechua -cka-ˇ ).

8. ci-mundaˇ colo-ga ˇ ni-ˇska that-AB cholo-TO say-SD.3S ‘Then the man said:’ 9. kay aˇcku-gasux ˇ miˇzi-ku-ma-ˇcari this dog-TO one terror-DI-EM-DU ‘“This dog must be a devil.”’ 10. awatero-ga upaˇza-wa kuˇcu-ya-ˇska water.guard-TO quietly-DI near-TF-SD.3S ‘The guard came closer quietly.’ 3.2 The Quechuan language family 239

We notice an emphatic marker -ma in sentence 9, possibly from -mi+ari, and a diminutive -wa in 10, probably from wawa ‘child’. The ablative -munda is often attached to demonstratives that function as narrative sequencers, throughout the story.

11. ci-munda-gaˇ sumirru-dazuxˇ ˇ si-ˇci-ˇska that-AB-TO hat-AC leave-CA-SD.3S ‘Then he took off his hat.’ 12. suxˇ rosariyo-da kunga-mundazuxˇ ˇ si-ˇci-ˇska aˇcku-muncura-ˇ ˇ ci-nga-bux one rosary-AC neck-AB leave-CA-SD.3S dog-to put-CA-FN-B ‘He took a rosary from his neck to put in on the dog.’ 13. aˇcku-ku-ga hatari-ˇska dog-DI-TO get.up-SD.3S ‘The dog jumped up.’ 14. ci-munda-gaˇ colo-da ˇ kati-ˇsa puri-ˇska-ˇza-mi that-AB-TO cholo-AC follow-SS walk-SD.3S-DL-AF ‘Then he just walked following the man.’

Very widespread is the same subject purposive -nga-bux in sentence 12; its different subjects pendant is -cunˇ .

15. kayi-ndix tuta aˇcku-ga swenyo-bisita-ˇ ˇ skacolo-mun ˇ next.day-IN night dog-TO dream-L throw-SD.3S cholo-AL ‘The next night the dog appeared to the man in a dream.’ 16. nyuka kunga-munda kay rosariyo-dazuxˇ ˇ si-ˇci-ba-y I neck-AB this rosary-AC leave-CA-CS-IM.2S ‘“Please take this rosary off my neck.’ 17. maˇsna kuˇcki-da ni-ngi how.much silver-AC say/want-2S ‘How much money do you want?’

In sentence 16 we notice that possession in Ecuadorian Quechua is not marked with person markers on the possessed noun, but with a preposed pronoun, marked genitive for all persons but the first. The suffix -ba, possibly derived from Peruvian Quechua -pu-wa ‘benefactive + first-person object’, is used to soften imperatives and to mark deference. Sentence 17 shows the use of the verb ni- ‘say’ in the meaning of ‘want’, which derives from its use in a verbal periphrastic construction (‘I say I’ll eat’ becomes ‘I want to eat’; cf. Muysken 1977).

18. baul kuˇcki-da ni-ki-biˇs ku-ˇsa-ˇza-mi trunk silver-AC say-DS-AD give-F.1S-DL-AF ‘Even if you want a trunk of silver, I’ll give it to you.’ 240 3 The Inca Sphere

19. uku hunda-da ni-ki-biˇsmaˇsna-da ni-ki-biˇsnyuka-ga ku-ˇsa-ˇza-mi room full-AC say-DS-AD how.much-AC say-DS-AD I-TO give-F.1S-DL-AF ‘Even if you want a room full, whatever you want, I’ll give you.”’ 20. aˇcku-ga swenyo-bisina-mi ˇ ni-ˇska dog-TO dream-L thus-AF say-SD.3S ‘The dog said in the dream.’

The use of the verb ku- ‘give’ in sentences 18 and 19 without object marking ex- emplifies the much reduced object marking in this variety of Quechua, either com- pletely gone or reduced to the first-person object marker -wa.Asinmany Quechua varieties, the combination of additive -biˇs (Peruvian Quechua -pas/-pis) and the ad- verbial subordinator yields an indefinite or even concessive interpretation (‘even though’). We see in sentence 19 that question words double as indefinite quantifiers. In sentence 19 the adjective (presumably) hunda ‘full’ follows the noun uku ‘room’ (as it does in English, for that matter), but in general attributive adjectives precede nouns.

21. utun maki ga-ˇsa-mi mana pudi-ˇska rosariyo-dazuxˇ ˇ si-ˇci-nga-bux stump hand be-SS-AF not can-SD.3S rosary-AC leave-CA-FN-B ‘Being stump-handed he could not take the rosary off.’ 22. kayi-ndix phunˇza awatero-ga aˇcku-da riku-ˇsa ni-ˇska next.day-IN day water.guard-TO dog-AC see-SS say-SD.3S ‘The next day the water guard, upon seeing the dog, said:’ 23. aˇcku, ima-ˇsa nyuka-da swenyo-ˇci-ngi dog what-SS I-AC dream-CA-2S ‘“Dog, with what in mind do you make me dream?”’

Sentence 21 contains an example of the innovative modal + infinitive combinations in Ecuadorian Quechua, with -nga-bux used on the complement. While grammar books describe Quechua as having both a negative adverb mana ‘not’ and a concomitant neg- ative particle -cuˇ on the verb, the latter is absent in sentence 21. In sentence 23 we see the ease with which nouns, in this case a Spanish borrowing, are incorporated into causative verbs with causative -ciˇ -. Notice finally the verbal use of the question word ima ‘what’.

24. bweno rosariyo-dazuxˇ ˇ si-ˇci-ˇsa pero nyuka-mun kuˇcki-da ku-ngi good rosary-AC leave-CA-F.1S but I-to silver-AC give-F.2S ‘“Good, I will take off the rosary but you will give me money.”’ 3.2 The Quechuan language family 241

25. sinaˇ ni-ki-ga aˇcku-gacay ˇ tuta-ˇza-dix kuˇcki-da pay-bux wasi-bi cura-ˇˇ ska thus say-DS-TO dog-TO that night-DL-EM silver-AC he-G house-L place-SD.3S ‘When the man had said this, the dog put the money in his house that very night.’ 26. kayi-ndix phunˇza kuˇcki-da riku-ˇsa awatero-ga rosariyo-da zuxˇˇ si-ˇci-ˇska next.day-IN day silver-AC see-SS water.guard-TO rosary-AC leave-CA-SD.3S ‘The next day the water guard, after seeing the money, took off the rosary.’

In sentences 24–26 we see, as before, the very characteristic alternation of same subject -saˇ /different subject -ki marking to indicate the perspective in the story, forever between the two protagonists. In sentence 24 we see two examples of the only category of Spanish borrowings which is at all frequent, next to single nouns: bweno ‘good’ and pero ‘but’, which serve as discourse markers. In sentence 25 there is an example of the genitive marker -bux (Peruvian Quechua -pa), which has emerged through syncretism with the benefactive (Peruvian Quechua -paq).

27. ciˇ khipa aˇcku-ga akapana tuku-ˇska that after dog-TO whirlwind become-SD.3S ‘After that the dog became a whirlwind.’ 28. gulun-ˇza ruru-ˇsa kutupagzi-mun ri-ˇska bang-DL make-SS Cotopaxi-AL go-SD.3S ‘With a bang it went to Cotopaxi.’ 29. caˇˇ sna-mi awatero riku tuku-ˇska thus-AF water.guard rich become-SD.3S ‘Thus the water guard became rich.’ 30. yaku larka-ga na kutin thuni-rga-ˇcu water ditch-TO not again cave.in-PA.3S-NE ‘And the water channel did not cave in again.’

In sentence 27 there is a postposition, khipa ‘after’. Location-specifying postpositions, such as rumi siki-bi ‘at the bottom of the stone’ in sentence 6, are particularly frequent in Quechua. This story is typical of many similar tales, juxtaposing Christianity with paganism (Cotopaxi is one of the sacred mountains, but had been transformed into a gate of hell in the colonial period) and untamed nature with (agri)culture, and containing the motif of a poor man making good. 242 3 The Inca Sphere

Above we have limited ourselves to grammatical features. The text also exemplifies many of the phonological characteristics of Salasaca Quechua. These include: a. voicing of stops after vowels and sonorants across morpheme boundaries, hence: papa-ta > papa-da ‘potato-AC’ pantiyon-pi > pantiyon-bi ‘-L’ Notice that only affixes are affected productively by this rule, and even among the affixes we have reciprocal -nuku (< *-naku), not *-nugu or *-nagu (though -nau in fairly close-by Tena lowland Quechua), next to -rga (<*-rka) ‘past’, -nga (<*-nka) ‘infinitive’, etc. b. raising of /a/ to [i] or [u]: -man > -mun -manta > -munda -pak > -pux -rak > -rix -paˇs > -piˇs -tak > -tix This rule is obligatory in affixes, but applies optionally in affixed lexemes as well: kayi-ndix (<*kaya-ntik) ‘next’ and ruru-ˇsa (<*rura-ˇspa) ‘making’. c. optional, though very frequent, deletion of the final stop of the affix in word-final position: pay-pak > pay-bu ‘her/his’, ‘for her/him’ may-man > may-mu ‘where to’. d. consonant cluster simplification in some affixes, yielding -kpi > -ki ‘dif- ferent subject adverbial subordinator’, and -spaˇ > -saˇ ‘same subject adverbial coordinator’. e. vowel cluster simplification, yielding miˇza-y > miˇzi ‘terror’ and tuku-y > tuki ‘all’, as well as wiˇcay > iˇci ‘above’ and wira > ira ‘fat’. f. the palatal zˇ is pronounced as a palatal affricate before voiceless stops, yielding kuˇzki > kuˇcki and aˇzku > aˇcku.

3.2.9 Asketch of a Peruvian Quechua dialect (Pacaraos) Pacaraos Quechua is spoken in the village of Pacaraos, a district capital situated near the upper reaches of the Chancay river at an altitude of more than 3,000 metres (for further details see Adelaar 1982, 1986a). The Chancay river waters the Pacific slopes of the Andes. The district of Pacaraos, which comprises several more villages, is part of the province of Huaral, belonging to the department of Lima. Pacaraos lies on the border of a Quechua-speaking area (on the cordillera side) and a Hispanicised area (the lower Chancay valley). The dialect known as Pacaraos Quechua 3.2 The Quechuan language family 243 may be restricted to the village of Pacaraos itself, although not all communities in the area have been checked for the existence of Quechua speakers and dialect affiliation. It is not unlikely that the Pacaraos dialect speech community originally extended further down the Chancay valley, possibly as far as the coast. In the late 1970s most speakers of Pacaraos Quechua were women in their sixties or older. The dialect may be moribund at the time of writing (1999), although some villagers, in particular youngsters raised by their grandmothers, are likely to conserve a passive knowledge of it. Pacaraos Quechua holds an intermediate position between Quechua I and Quechua II, but the grammatical similarity with the neighbouring Quechua I dialects is an obvious fact. Apart from some unique grammatical features to be discussed below, it is the lexicon of Pacaraos Quechua that holds a number of surprises. Some vocabulary items (e.g. kunan ‘now’) appear to be typically Quechua IIC; others are reminiscent of Aymaran (e.g. aˇcara ‘old’, uni- ‘to hate’, wilka ‘sun’), or are unique for Pacaraos (e.g. arapu- ‘to answer’, caqpaˇ ‘clothes’, rapqa- ‘both’). The six-term deictic system, in which altitude differences are encoded, has already been mentioned in section 3.2.7. Phonologically, Pacaraos Quechua presents the particularity of a phonemic stress distinction involving a choice between final and penultimate syllables. Final stress is a characteristic of the first-person marker -y,asintarp´uy ‘I sow’, and of a number of other suffixes that are subject to elision when in word-final position. Like Quechua I, Pacaraos Quechua distinguishes between long and short vowels. The uvular consonant q is always a fricative in Pacaraos. It is voiceless when ad- jacent to a voiceless consonant and word-finally. Elsewhere, it is mainly voiced. A unique feature of Pacaraos Quechua is the occurrence in native words of a vibrant op- position (trill vs. tap) in prevocalic position, e.g. rraqak ‘girl’ versus rapqa-n ‘both of them’. The trilled rr sounds very much like the equivalent sound in Castilian Spanish. In what follows, some characteristics of the Pacaraos dialect will be exemplified and discussed by means of a fragment of a myth concerning a drought and subsequent famine. These events are said to have occurred in pre-Christian times as a result of excessive heat due to the simultaneous appearance of two suns. The story was told to the author in 1979 by the late Mrs Lorena C´ordova.

1. amru:na-qa ...mana-ˇs miku-y ka-rqa-s-a: say wata say wilka yarka-rqa-mu-pti-n famine-TO...not-HS eat-IF be.there-PA.3S-NE-EM that year that sun rise-PF-H-DS-3S ‘Famine...there was nothing to eat that year, when those two suns arose.’ 244 3 The Inca Sphere

Among the lexical elements to be mentioned in particular, wilka ‘sun’ (see above) is not found in any other Quechua dialect; amru:na is from Spanish hambruna ‘famine’. The non-proximate deictic say (< *ˇcay) shows the effect of a regular change *ˇc> s,which Pacaraos shares with a number of QI dialects on the Pacific side of the Andes. The verb yarku- ‘rise’, ‘climb’ contains a petrified derivational suffix -rku- ‘upwards’. Internal verbal suffixes that end in a rounded back vowel u change this vowel to a before a small class of other internal verbal suffixes including the ventive -mu- ‘hither’, as in the example given. The intervening suffix -rqu- ‘perfective aspect’ is affected as well. Unique for Pacaraos is the shape of the independent suffix -s-,which in combination with the adverb mana marks a negative sentence. This suffix appears in its full shape -su (< *-ˇcu)when the phonological context requires it, that is, when it is not preceded by a short vowel or followed by -a: (see below). When the allomorph -s occurs in word- final position, the vowel preceding it is stressed. Since penultimate stress is the rule in Pacaraos Quechua, the existence of a short form -s must be interpreted as the result of the elision of a final vowel (u). This elision is optional, although the use of the short form is preferred. The element -a: indicates emphasis and is frequently used in Pacaraos Quechua. The reportative independent suffix indicates a second-hand data source and appears in its long form -siˇ when not preceded by a short vowel or followed by -a:. The alternation -ˇs/-ˇsi is reconstructible for Proto-Quechua and bears no relationship to the alternation described in the preceding paragraph. When the short allomorph -ˇs occurs in word-final position, the preceding vowel is not stressed. Other affixes found in sentence 1 are the independent suffix -qa,which may delineate a non-comment phrase, the infinitive marker -y, the past-tense marker -rqa-, the switch- reference marker -pti- ‘different subject’ and the third-person subject marker -n.As in several other dialects, the third-person subject marker is zero after the past-tense marker -rqa-.

2. saki-rqa-ˇsim´a-p ayk´a-p haˇc.a-p´ im´a-p wa:k´a-p dry-PA.3S-HS what-AD how.much-AD plant-AD what-AD cow-AD ‘Everything dried out, the plants, etc., and the cows as well.’

Sentence 2 contains several instances of the additive suffix -pa ‘even’, ‘too’. This suffix has a short form -p,which is the product of elision, and the distribution of the two forms is parallel to that of the allomorphs of -su (see above). Ima-p(a) ayka-p(a) is a composite pronominal expression meaning ‘all kinds of’, ‘everything’; the second 3.2 The Quechuan language family 245 instance of ima closes an enumeration and has the meaning of ‘et cetera’. Wa:ka is a borrowing from Spanish (vaca).

3. wanyu-ku-rqa-ˇs animal-kuna die-RF-PA.3S-HS animal-PL ‘The animals died.’

The use of the reflexive suffix -ku- can be explained in that the animals died for no reason, without any social benefit to their owners. The suffix -kuna indicates nominal plurality.

4. sawr´a-q yanqa kay-naw uˇcuˇcaq wamra-kun´a-p miku-y-piq-ˇsi wanyu-rqu-n then-TO in.vain this-CP little child-PL-AD eat-IF-AB-HS die-PF-3S ‘Then, in this way, even the little children died in vain for lack of food.’

The expression sawr´a-q(a) is probably a contraction of *say ura-qa (ura ‘hour’, ‘time’, from Spanish hora ‘hour’). The independent suffix -qa (non-comment phrase marker) exhibits the same phonological variation as -pa and -su. The proximate deictic kay followed by the marker -naw ‘like’ behaves like an adverb here (‘in this way’). The ablative case marker -piq or -piqta is used in an expression with the infinitive of miku- ‘to eat’, mikuypiqta ‘without eating’, ‘for lack of food’ (literally, ‘away from eating’).

y 5. sawr´a-q kay-kuna pun u-rka:ˇc.a:-raq-su then-TO this-PL sleep-PL.PR-PA.3S-IR ‘So were they asleep?’

When used without either one of the negative markers mana (in statements) and ama (in exhortations), the independent suffix -su indicates a polar question. The verbal suffix -rka:ˇc. a:- is a portmanteau morpheme combining the function of a progressive aspect (marker -yka:-) and a plural (marker -rka:-). As in most Quechua I dialects, a low vowel located at the end of an internal verbal affix is automatically long in most open syllables. The ending -raq is an alternative for -rqa (past tense + third-person subject).

6. keba: sin miku-y-piq kay-kuna punyu-ka-nqa how without eat-IF-AB this-PL sleep-NC-3S.F ‘How do you expect them to fall asleep without eating?’

The expression keba: (from Spanish ¿qu´e va?), here without a question marker, is fol- lowed by a future-tense form. It introduces a rhetorical question. The derivational suffix -ka:- in punyukanqa indicates non-controlled action, punyu-ka:- and punyu- relating to 246 3 The Inca Sphere each other more or less like ‘to fall asleep’ and ‘to sleep’ in English. The suffix -ka:- appears here as -ka- because of its checked position within a closed syllable. The prepo- sition sin ‘without’, a borrowing from Spanish, may have a disambiguating function, favouring the interpretation ‘without eating’ for mikuypiq.

7. mana-m punyu-ka-n-su miku-y-piqt´a-q not-AF sleep-NC-3S-NE eat-IF-AB-TO ‘They did not fall asleep because they were hungry.’

The negative adverb mana is followed by the assertive independent suffix -mi/-m. The distribution of its allomorphs is the same as that of the reportative -ˇsi/-ˇs (see above). The suffix -qa (-´q)isrequired in a non-comment phrase located after the verb.

8. sawr´a-q mana-ˇs punyu-ka-rqu-nyaq-su wamra-kun´a-q then-TO not-HS sleep-NC-PF-SD.3S-NE child-PL-TO ‘So it turned out that they had not fallen asleep, the children.’

The portmanteau ending -nyaq marks the sudden-discovery tense and a third-person subject. It is preceded by the perfective aspect marker -rqu-,which indicates immed- iateness or, in this case, the (lack of) result of a previous development.

y 9. “may-ˇc.aw-raq kanala ka-yka-n” n i-n-ˇsi where-L-AN corn.toaster be-PR-3S say-3S-HS ‘“Where could the corn toaster be?” they would say.’

Interrogative expressions such as mayˇc. aw ‘where?’ (may ‘what place?’, -ˇc. aw ‘locative case’) can be followed by the independent suffix -raq ‘still’ for the purpose of indicating that an answer is not likely to be obtained. The element -yka- represents the progressive aspect marker -yka:- in a checked position. With the verb ka- ‘to be (there)’, progressive aspect indicates a temporary position.

y 10. “kuy-ˇc.aw ka-yka-n” n asay-naw-pa-ˇswamra rima-rqu-rqa that.over.there-L be-PR-3S already that-CP-G-HS child speak-PF-PA.3S ‘“It is over there”, a child had said.’

The deictic kuy indicates location at a distance within sight of the speaker and the hearer. It stands in opposition to kay ‘this (near speaker)’ and say ‘that (near hearer or anaphoric)’. The three far distant deictics are c.ˇaqay ‘lower level’, c.ˇuqay ‘same level’ and naqay ‘higher level’. The form saynaw ‘such’ exemplifies a special type of use of the comparative case marker -naw ‘like’. Whereas it normally functions as a deictic adjective, saynaw is 3.2 The Quechuan language family 247 adverbialised by means of the genitive case marker -pa. The verb rimarqurqa illustrates a combination of perfective aspect and past tense.

11. say o:ra-ˇs mama-n wanyu-si-raq miku-na-m-paq that time-HS mother-3P die-CA-PA.3S eat-FN-3S-B ‘At that moment, its mother killed it in order to eat it.’

The borrowed term o:ra (also ura, cf. above, from Spanish hora ‘hour’) is used for time in general. Time expressions need not take a case marker. The form maman contains a third-person possessive marker -n; number of possessor is not indicated in Pacaraos Quechua. The derivational suffix -si-(< *-ˇci-) marks a causative construction. The combination of -na ‘future nominaliser’ and -paq ‘benefactive case’ indicates a goal; -m is a phonologically conditioned allomorph of the third-person subject marker -n.

12. payla-wan-ˇsi yanu-raq say wamr´a-k cooking.pan-IS-HS cook-PA.3S that child-AC ‘She cooked that child in a large cooking-pan.’

The instrument is indicated by means of the case marker -wan. The accusative marker -kta indicates a direct object. Word-finally, it appears in its form -k, preceded by a short stressed vowel. The distribution of -kta and -k is similar to that of the allomorphs of the suffixes -pa,-qa and -su (see above). Additionally, the accusative case marker has an allomorph -ta after consonants or long vowels. The example sentences to be treated below constitute a necessary supplement to the above text fragment in that they contain references to the speech participants.

13. lyam´a-y ka-pti-n kanta-q ka-y, kunan mana-m kanta-y-su -1P be.there-DS-3S sing-HB be-1S, now not-AF sing-1S-NE ‘When I had , I used to sing. Now I don’t sing any more.’

The suffix -y, preceded by a stressed vowel when in word-final position, refers to the speaker. It may either indicate a first-person possessor, or a first-person subject. The combination of an agentive nominalisation (suffix -q) and the verb ka- ‘to be’ indicates a past habitual.

14. nyuq´a-q huk-la-m-a: rima-mu-rq´a-y, pi:=pi-kt´a-p nyuq´a-q rim´a-y, I-TO one-DL-AF-EM speak-H-PA-1S who=who-AC-AD I-TO speak-1S “may-piqta-m ka-nki, ima-m huti-ki” lapa-n-ta-m-a: nyuq´a-q tapu-k´u-y what.place-AB-AF be-2S, what-AF name-2P all-3P-AC-AF-EM I-TO ask-RF-1S ‘I spoke to you at once. I speak to everybody. I always ask everyone: “Where are you from? What is your name?”’ 248 3 The Inca Sphere

The verb rimamurq´ay ‘I spoke to you’ is an example of the unique way in which Pacaraos Quechua expresses the combination of a first-person subject and a second- person object. Except in the future-tense paradigm, this combination is indicated by means of what is otherwise the ventive suffix -mu- and the first-person subject marker -´y (if possible, with previous stress). The combined subject–object markers consist of two parts that can be separated by other suffixes, in this case, by the past-tense marker -rqa. The suffix -la in hukla ‘at once’ normally refers to limitation (‘just’, ‘only’); huk is a numeral ‘one’. Second-person markers are -nki (for subject) and -yki (for possessor); the latter appears in a shorter form -ki after roots in i, such as huti ‘name’. The reflexive suffix -ku- has a derived meaning ‘always’, ‘characteristically’ in tapuk´uy ‘I always ask’. The root lapa- ‘all’ is compulsorily followed by a possessive personal reference marker, in this case, the third-person marker -n.Inneutral WH-questions, interroga- tive pronouns or phrases are closed by the assertive validator -mi/-m. The combination of the additive independent suffix -pa (-´p) following an interrogative root such as pi ‘who’ (pi: when not directly followed by a suffix) results in an indefinite pronoun ‘who- ever’. The reduplication of pi(:) indicates that several people are addressed on separate occasions.

y 15. qayan rrahu-kta-ˇc.-a: puri-ri-rqa-yki, n awi-k´ı-k surumpi-ˇsu.nki yesterday snow-AC-DU-EM walk-PL-PA-2S, eye-2P-AC give.snow. blindness-3S.2O ‘Yesterday you (plural) must have walked through the snow; your eyes were snow-blind.’

The combination -ˇsu- ...-nki indicates a second-person object with a third-person subject, the verb surumpi-having an impersonal subject. The derivational suffix -ri- indicates plurality in verbs not marked for aspect. The second-person subject marker -yki is used in the past-tense paradigm of the verbs. The independent suffix -ˇc. i/-ˇc. indicates conjecture; the distribution of the two allomorphs is the same as in the case of -mi/-m and -ˇsi/-ˇs.

y 16. altu-ˇc.aw ka-yka-nqa-y-kama-m intrega-rqa-ma:-n aq mam´a-y, high.parts-L be.there-PR-N-1S-LI-AF hand.over-PA-1O-SD.3S mother-1P, wa:ka-piqsa-mu-rq´ ˇ a-y kasara-q cow-AB come-H-PA-1S marry-AG ‘While I was up in the mountains, my mother had given me away. I came straight from the cows to get married.’ 3.2 The Quechuan language family 249

The combination of a first-person object and a third-person subject is illustrated in intregarqama:nyaq.First-person object is indicated by -ma:- (for the long vowel see above). The sudden discovery ending -nyaq implies a third-person subject, unless it is accompanied by a conjugated form of the auxiliary verb ka- ‘to be’. The word altu (from the Spanish adjective alto ‘high’) has come to mean ‘highlands’, ‘high mountains’ in Pacaraos Quechua. The nominalising suffix -nqa- combines with progressive aspect and the case marker -kama ‘until’, ‘each’ in order to indicate simul- taneousness of a dependent clause and a main clause (‘while’). The ablative marker -piq is to be translated as ‘from’. The verb samuˇ - ‘to come’ obligatorily contains the ventive suffix -mu- ‘hither’. In Pacaraos Quechua, the defective root saˇ - and its ventive supplement can be separated by other suffixes. The agentive nominalisation in -q can be used as a complement of motion verbs, as is the case in sentence 16. The following two sentences illustrate some more characteristic features of Pacaraos Quechua. Sentence 17 contains the suffix -V:naq (-ni:naq after consonants) for ‘without’. (There is also a verbal ending -V:ni ‘without . . . ing’.) The agentive form kariq is used for a habitual past ‘they used to be’. The absence of an auxiliary verb implies a third-person subject.

17. cˇ.ina-:naq-la-m kay-ˇc.aw ka-ri-q female.animal-without-DL-AF this.place-L be.there-PL-HB ‘They (the rams) used to be here without ewes.’

In sentence 18 -sun (< *-ˇcun) indicates a third-person imperative. The deictic c.ˇaqay involves reference to altitude level.

18. cˇ.aqay-ˇc.aw say wamra-kuna pukla-ri-sun distant.lower.place-L that child-PL play-PL-3S.IM ‘Let those children play down over there!’

3.2.10 A Cuzco Quechua text fragment The following text fragment is taken from the autobiographical history in Quechua of Gregorio Condori Mamani (1977: 59). The recorded autobiographies of Gregorio and his wife Asunta were translated and annotated by Carmen Escalante and Ricardo Valderrama. For an English version see Gelles and Mart´ınez (1996). The sample text is part of a story that was told to Gregorio in prison by a fellow-inmate from Ccamara (qamara). As the narrator explains, the people from Ccamara had a reputation for daring exploits and cock-and-bull stories. 250 3 The Inca Sphere

h 1. mask a-ˇsa-spa-tax.-si tari-ru-n hux hunt’a mut’i manka-ta hux.-ta-tax. ciˇˇ carron-ni-yux.-ta. search-PR-SS-SQ-HS find-U-3S one full mote pot-AC one-AC-SQ chicharr´on-EU-OS-AC ‘While searching, he reportedly found a pot full of cooked corn and one with pork meat.’

The words hux and hux. ‘one’, ‘other’ are equivalent in Cuzco Quechua. The Spanish word chicharr´on refers to over-roasted diced pork meat, which is considered a delicacy. The word mut’i (Spanish mote) refers to cooked grains of corn. The function of the suffix -ru- (∼ -rqu-) has been described for Cuzco Quechua as indicating a sudden event, completion of an event, or an action performed with a sense of urgency (Cusihuam´an 1976a). It can be combined with the progressive aspect marker -ˇsa-. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted as a (perfective) aspect marker, as is the case in Pacaraos and southern Quechua I, where -r(q)u- and the progressive aspect marker are mutually exclusive. The form hux. tatax. is used elliptically for hux. mankatatax. . The independent suffix -tax. marks a sequence of sentences (‘and...’), often with the implication of a contrast (‘on the one hand...,ontheother...’). In the latter case, the use of -tax. favours elliptic constructions as exemplified here.

h y 2. mik u-y-ta-tax.-si qal a.yu-n. eat-IF-AC-EM-HS begin-3S ‘And he began to eat.’

The verb qal yayu- ‘to begin’ obligatorily contains the suffix -yu- (∼ -yku-), which originally referred to inward motion. Other dialects have reflexes of qal yari-,butqal ya- never occurs by itself.

3. peru as-ta-wan-siciˇ ˇ carron-ta muna-n. but a.little-AC-IS-HS chicharr´on-AC want-3S ‘But he wanted more pork meat.’

The conjunction peru ‘but’ is from Spanish pero. The combination aswan (literally ‘with a little’) has the meaning of ‘more’. In the role of the object, here in apposition with ciˇˇ carronta,anaccusative case marker -ta is inserted before -wan in accordance with the regular affix order found in other contexts.

h 4. manka-kuna mask a-ˇsa-sqa-m-pi-tax.-si tari-ru-n manka-kuna-ta ciˇˇ carron hunt’a-ta. pot-PL search-PR-SN-3S-L-SQ-HS find-U-3S pot-PL-AC chicharr´on full-AC ‘And while he was searching for (more) pots, he found (other) pots full of pork chops.’ 3.2 The Quechuan language family 251

The combination of progressive aspect (-saˇ -), a stative nominaliser (-sqa) and the locative case marker -pi is used to indicate simultaneousness (‘while...’). The form -m- is the regular allomorph of the third-person marker -n before a labial consonant. The word mankakuna lacks an accusative case marker, because it is the object of a nominalised verb. The word hunt’a ‘full’ normally follows the product a container is filled with.

5. pero runa-x. ninri-n-manta-sciˇ ˇ carron-qa ka-sqa. but people-G ear-3P-AB-HS chicharr´on-TO be-SD.3S ‘But those pork chops turned out to be people’s ears.’

The word for ‘ear’ rinri is frequently found as ninri in Cuzco Quechua.

6. mut’i manka-kuna-tax.-si runa kiru-n ka-sqa. mote pot-PL-SQ-HS people tooth-3P be-SD.3S ‘And the pots with cooked corn turned out to be people’s teeth.’

Note the absence of a genitive marker in runa kirun (instead of runax. kirun). The final -n cannot be interpreted as an affirmative validator (-mi/-n), because the sentence already contains the hearsay marker -si.

h 7. qamara mik u-sqa-n manka-kuna-tanawi-pas ˜ salta-x.-rax. h y q awa-sa-xˇ .ti-n-si, karu-manta-rax. uya.ri-ru-n korneta hina l aki qapa.ri-ka-mu-y-ta. Ccamara eat-SN-3S pot-PL-AC eye-AD jump-AG-AN look-PR- DS-3S-HS far-AB-AN hear-U-3S cornet like lament shout-RF-H-IF-AC ‘As the (man from) Ccamara was looking at the pots he had been eating from, with his eyes jumping out of their sockets, he heard sorrowful cries like (the sound of) a cornet approaching from afar.’

The nominalised verb mikhusqan functions as a locative-based relative clause (‘from which he had been eating’). The sentence contains several instances of the independent suffix -rax. ‘still’, ‘first’, here glossed as ‘anticompletive’ (AN). It indicates an obstacle to be taken before an event referred to in the context can take place: nawipas˜ saltax. rax. ‘although his eyes would come out first (before he was able to do so)’, karumantarax. ‘although the sound was coming from quite a distance (still to be bridged)’. The phrase nawipas˜ saltax. rax. is not connected morphologically to the rest of the sentence. Such a construction, reminiscent of a Latin ablativus absolutus (but without case marking), is found in several Quechua dialects. The phrase l yaki qaparikamuy (literally ‘approaching shouts of lamentation’) mirrors a compound. The reflexive suffix -ku- is lowered to -ka- before the ventive suffix -mu-.For the structure of qapari- and uyari-, see the comments 252 3 The Inca Sphere on qal yayu- in sentence 2; the element -ri- is otherwise interpreted as an inceptive. The word hina ‘as’, ‘like’, ‘so’ functions as a postposition in this sentence.

y 8. pasa.x. qapa.ri-ka-mu-y wasi serka-pi-n a ka-ˇsa-x.ti-n-tax.-si, qamara p’ita-spa wasi-x. moxineti-n-man taparaku hina t’ipa-ru-ku-n. everywhere shout-RF-H-IF house neighbourhood-L-CM be-PR-DS- 3S-SQ-HS Ccamara jump-SS house-G roof.beam-3P-AL moth like cling-U-RF-3S ‘And when the approaching shouts were already everywhere near the house, the (man from) Ccamara jumped into a roof-beam and clung to it like a moth.’

The word pasax. ‘everywhere’, ‘always’, ‘too much’ is derived from the Spanish verb pasar ‘to pass’. The ending -x. can be identified as the agentive nominaliser. The Quechua word serka, from Spanish cerca ‘near’, has the meaning of a substantive (‘neighbour- hood’), as has Quechua karu ‘distant place’, ‘distance’ (rather than just ‘far’).

9. hina-man-tax.-si waqa-yu-spa hayku-mu-n hux runa asufri-man h h asna-ˇsa-x., haqay nirax. cˇ aˇcu t antacaki ˇ maki-n-tax. hunt’a yawar-ˇca-sqa lyaga-manta. so-AL-SQ-HS cry-IT-SS enter-H-3S one man sulphur-AL smell-PR-AG that resembling ragged ragged foot hand-3P-SQ full blood-FA-SN wound-AB ‘And there a man came in, crying intensely, smelling of sulphur, ragged in an awful way, his feet and hands covered in blood from wounds.’

The expression hinaman, literally ‘into like’, refers to motion into a situation (‘in those circumstances’, ‘at that moment’, ‘there’). The suffix -yu- (∼ -yku-) indicates intensity, one of its uses according to Cusihuaman (1976a), derived from its original function as a marker of inward motion (cf. the comments on sentence 2). The phrase asufriman asnaˇsax. is a relative clause which contains a nominalised verb and follows the antecedent. Note that the complement in ‘to smell of (something)’ is indicated by means of the allative case (-man). The phrase haqay nirax. , literally ‘resembling (nirax. ) that remote one (haqay)’, is an expression of exaggeration or high degree. The words cˇhaˇcu and thanta both have the same meaning ‘in rags’. The phrase cakiˇ maki ‘feet and hands’ behaves like a single noun. The words asufri and l yaga are borrowings from Spanish (azufre, llaga).

10. kondenadu-tax.-si ka-sqa. condenado- SQ-HS be-SD.3S ‘He turned out to be a damned soul.’ 3.2 The Quechuan language family 253

The notion of condenado refers to the souls of unburied deceased people, who roam about terrorising the living. This is a frequent theme of the Andean oral tradition.

y y y 11. l aki=l aki-yu-ku-spa-tax.-si hux ratu-ˇca-l aˇciˇcarron-ta mikhu-ra-pu-n. lament=lament-IT-RF-SS-SQ-HS one moment-DI-DL chicharr´on-AC eat-U-RS-3S ‘Lamenting continuously, he devoured the roasted pork meat in a moment.’

The reduplication in l yaki=l yakiku- indicates an event which is particularly intense and continuous as compared to the simple form l yakiku- ‘to be sad’, ‘to lament’. The reflexive suffix -ku- is part of the verb form and cannot be omitted. The intensive suffix -yu- is inserted in the verb form in order to preserve the preferred affix order -y(k)u-ku-. Adverbial expressions are often followed by the suffix -l ya ‘just’, ‘only’. The verbal suffix -pu- indicates either the presence of a beneficiary, or restitution to an original state. The sequence -ra-pu-, consisting of the urgency suffix -r(q)u-, here lowered to -ra- before -pu-, can be used to indicate violent seizure for the subject’s own benefit.

12. kiru mut’i-ta-pas hawas hank’a-ta hina t’ux.a-ˇci-spa-rax.-si h y mik u-ru-l a-n-tax.. tooth mote-AC-AD bean toasted.food-AC like burst-CA-SS-AN-HS eat-U-DL-3S-SQ ‘And he also ate the tooth corn, making it burst like toasted beans.’

The word hawas ‘beans’ represents an early borrowing of Spanish habas. The old Spanish aspiration (now lost) is preserved in the borrowed form. Types of food prepara- tion are often expressed by means of compound-like sequences of substantives in which the head noun specifies the sort of preparation whereas the modifier indicates the prod- uct that has been cooked (literally, ‘bean toast’, rather than ‘toasted beans’). The verb t’ux. a-(< *t’uqya-) ‘to burst’, ‘to explode’ refers to the characteristic sound of toasted beans.

y y y h 13. n a manka-ta l ax.wa-ˇsa-x.ti-n-n a-s musk i-ru-n: already pot-AC lick-PR-DS-3S-CM-HS smell-U-3S ‘When he was already licking the pots, he at once smelled something.’

In Southern Peruvian Quechua II the adverb nya ‘already’ is obligatorily accompanied by the homophonous independent suffix -nya (here glossed as ‘completive’). Note the use of the different-subject subordination marker -x. ti- in a sentence where only one 254 3 The Inca Sphere subject is involved. It may be either a mistake, or a sign that the distinction is no longer actively used by the narrator.

14. “ima-tax. cay-riˇ asna-n madeha henti-man?” what-SQ that-TO.IR smell-3S string people-AL ‘“What is it that smells of a string of people here?”’

The suffix -tax. follows WH-phrases when used interrogatively. The independent suffix -ri indicates the topic in an interrogation. A Spanish expression madeja de gente ‘string of people’ appears as madeha hente; its deeper sense remains unexplained. Gelles and Mart´ınez (1996: 66) translate it as ‘human hair’.

3.2.11 Literary production in Quechua In pre-Spanish times Quechua was not a written language. Chroniclers of Inca history and other early colonial accounts emphasise the absence of an indigenous writing system. Knotted threads, called (Quechua khipu), were used as a mnemotechnic device for economic and administrative purposes. To this effect, the Incas maintained specialised officials, the quipucamayoc (Quechua khipukamayuq). Entrusted with the keeping of the quipus, the quipucamayoc relied on their memory in order to supply the additional information the quipus could not convey. Contemporary witnesses praise the high per- fection of writing, which remained in use for local administration well into the colonial period. However, hard evidence that the quipus could represent real language of any form is lacking, in spite of claims to the contrary by some colonial authors.42 A set of heraldic symbols, which were depicted on Inca tunics known as unku,have also been interpreted as samples of an indigenous writing system. But again, there is no reliable evidence that these symbols were related to language in any direct way. Whatever literary production the Incas had was transmitted orally. Samples of such literature are found in the work of Crist´obal de Molina (1574) and Guaman Poma de Ayala (1615). Inca literary production has been the object of ill-fated attempts to categorise it in terms of European literary genres, as a means to enhance the prestige of Andean culture within an indigenista perspective. Most likely, the literary production of Inca society mainly comprised myths and folk songs, as is still the case today in traditional Andean society. Theatre performances, accompanied by chorals, have survived in a traditional context. Best known is the cycle describing the death of Atahuallpa, the Inca ruler executed by the Spaniards (Lara 1957; Meneses Morales 1987; Husson 2001). Such performances, although heavily transformed, may have pre-Spanish roots.

42 The discussion about an alleged literary use of the quipus was revived after the discovery in of a manuscript attributed to Blas Valera, a dissident Jesuit and defender of the Indians (Animato, Rossi and Miccinelli 1989). The authenticity of this manuscript remains disputed. 3.2 The Quechuan language family 255

Foralanguage of such importance as Quechua, surprisingly little text material has survived from the colonial epoch. Without any doubt, the longest and most interesting text belonging to that period is the Huarochir´ı manuscript (Taylor and Acosta 1987; Salomon and Urioste 1991). This document was written before 1608 by local literate Indians on behalf of the idolatry fighter (extirpador de idolatr´ıas)Francisco de Avila, who used it as an instrument for the eradication of native cults. De Avila was parish priest in San Dami´an de Checas in the province of Huarochir´ı, in the mountainous interior of what is today the department of Lima. The Huarochir´ı manuscript contains an overview of local mythology and interethnic relations, descriptions of rituals and celebrations, as well as penetrating accounts of the interaction between Christian and native beliefs. Theatre plays in Quechua became popular in Cuzco towards the end of the seventeenth century. The themes treated were mostly religious (autos sacramentales, among other work) and of European inspiration. Although the language was Quechua, the theatri- cal form (metre, division into acts) was obviously Spanish. Best known among these theatre plays is the Ollanta(y); for a recent edition see Calvo P´erez (1998a). It treats a romanticised theme of Inca history, the love between Ollantay, an Inca general of humble descent, and the Inca princess Cusi Coyllur. Indigenista intellectuals and admirers of the Inca past have long claimed a pre-Columbian origin for the Ollantay. Obviously, such a claim can only be upheld for the story underlying the play, not for the play itself. For a detailed account of the colonial Quechua theatre tradition see Mannheim (1991). After the Quechua language was banned from public use as a reaction to the Tupac Amaru rebellion of the 1780s, Quechua literary production all but came to a standstill. Forarenewed interest in Quechua literature, we must await local indigenista movements that came into existence in the early twentieth century. These movements were mostly headed by mestizos, not by traditional Indians. Among those authors who wrote poetry in Quechua as an expression of individual experience, we may mention the Cuzco landowner Alencastre, also known under the pseudonym Kilku Warak’a, and Jorge Lira, a Cuzco parish priest. In Ecuador, the landowners Luis Cordero and Juan Le´on Mera wrote Quechua poetry around the turn of the century. The Bolivian scholar Jes´us Lara published several anthologies of Quechua literature of all genres (see, in particular, Lara 1969). For a choice of theatre plays in Quechua dating from the early twentieth century, authored by Nemesio Z´u˜niga Cazorla, see Itier (1995). The bulk of twentieth-century Quechua literature, however, is traditional. It consists of myths, traditional narratives, autobiographical accounts, songs and riddles. Some of these texts represent blends of Andean traditions and elements imported from Europe. The last three decades of the twentieth century have witnessed a huge production of anthologies and compilations of traditional text in different Quechua dialects. To mention just a few of them, the autobiography of Gregorio Condori Mamani (1977), an illiterate peasant from Acopia (Cuzco), was taken down in writing by two anthropologists, Escalante and 256 3 The Inca Sphere

Valderrama (cf. section 3.2.10). It is a story of endless suffering and great endurance, mixed with optimism, which contains much unique cultural and anthropological informa- tion. Among other valuable text material recorded by the aforementioned anthropologists is a remarkably authentic account of the violent lives of cattle-hustlers from Cotabambas, Apurimac (Escalante and Valderrama 1992). Howard-Malverde (1981) contains an ex- tensive collection of myths and stories from Ca˜nar (Ecuador). Weber (1987a) presents a compilation of the popular Juan del Oso (John of the Bear) stories in different dialects. Songs, in particular the highly popular , constitute an element of daily life in the Andes. Song texts are modified and adapted according to changing circumstances in the social and political environment. One of the largest anthologies of Quechua song texts is La sangre de los cerros (urqukunapa yawarnin), compiled by Montoya et al. (1987). Few authors have attempted to write contemporary literary texts in Quechua. Even the bilingual Peruvian author Jos´e Mar´ıa Arguedas (1911–69) wrote his novels in Spanish and only some poems in Quechua.

3.2.12 Social factors influencing the future of Quechua If seen as a unity, Quechua is the most widely spoken Amerindian language today. No wonder that the issue of its future captures the attention of linguists, language planners and educators both within the Andean region and elsewhere. In spite of the low social status of Quechua, many inhabitants of Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru are aware of its native, non-European origin, as opposed to Spanish, once the language of a foreign colonising power and now of a foreign-oriented ruling class. In 1975, as a result of agrowing demand for a renewed recognition of national and indigenous values, the Peruvian military government of issued a decree which put Quechua on an equal level with Spanish, as the second national language. It was to remain a symbolic act. The implementation of the decree was largely ineffective, but it helped to enhance the prestige of Quechua in the eyes of its users. It also generated agreat deal of discussion on how to secure the future of Quechua and its many local varieties. Ever since, the situation in Peru has been marked by a tension between planners and educators favouring the maintenance and standardisation of the local dialects, on one side, and those looking for a solution in the sphere of linguistic unification, on the other. As experts in the Quechua dialect situation (e.g. Torero 1974) observed that many of the Peruvian varieties were mutually unintelligible, the Peruvian gov- ernment decided to select six regional standards, Ancash, Ayacucho, Cajamarca, Cuzco, Huanca and Lamas/San Mart´ın, for which documentation projects were commissioned (cf. section 3.2.4). This choice was rather artificial in the sense that much dialect diver- sity existed within the domain of each of the regional standards, in particular Ancash, 3.2 The Quechuan language family 257

Cajamarca, Cuzco and Huanca.43 Understandably, the regional standards never became popular, unless they already enjoyed such a status before (Ayacucho, Cuzco). Rather than government policy, initiatives in the context of international development cooperation have been relatively successful in supporting and propagating the Quechua linguistic heritage during the 1980s and 1990s, in particular, the Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue (Experimental Project for Bilingual Education) with its two bases in Puno and in Quito and, more recently, PROEIB Andes (Programme for Bilingual Intercultural Education for the Andean Countries) in Cochabamba. In Bolivia and in Ecuador, where the dialect differences are less outspoken, the devel- opment of a local Quechua standard may have better prospects than in Peru. In Ecuador broadcasting programmes in Quechua and a strong native identity feeling, coupled with a relatively high degree of organisation, have stimulated linguistic unification. For his- torical reasons standardisation programmes in Ecuador have been independent from those carried out in Peru and Bolivia. As a result, orthographic usage in Ecuador for a long time remained different from that in the other two Andean countries. For instance, whereas the Quechua velar stop was officially written k in Peru and Bolivia, followed the Spanish habit of writing qu before the vowels i and e,butc elsewhere.44 The bilabial continuant, traditionally rendered by means of the combination hu,was written w in Peru and Bolivia, but not in Ecuador, where it continued to be written hu. Only since 1998 has the Ecuadorian spelling coincided with the Peruvian and Bolivian practice (Howard MS). The issue of how to incorporate conflicting interpretations of the vowel system into a standard Quechua orthography has been the object of heated debate during the 1980s and 90s, the central point of contention being whether mid vowels in the environment of a uvular should be written i, u,ore, o, respectively. An argument frequently advanced in favour of writing five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) phonetically is that the allophonic vowel lowering is not entirely predictable; in Cuzco Quechua, for instance, sinqa ‘nose’ is normally pronounced with a [sεŋqa], whereas the pronunciation in purinqa ‘he will walk’ varies due to the presence of a morpheme boundary separating the root from the ending [purŋqa ∼ purεŋqa]. Furthermore, in several present-day Quechua dialects there are non-borrowed items that have acquired a mid vowel in a non-uvular

43 The Jun´ın–Huanca standard described in Cerr´on-Palomino (1976a, b) presents a synthetic vision of the Huanca dialects spoken in the valley. Its name suggests that it is also valid for the Quechua spoken in the northern part of the department of Jun´ın (including the provinces of Jun´ın, Tarma and Yauli), which differs considerably from the rather innovative Huanca dialects. As a result, northern Jun´ın is not effectively covered by any of the six regional standards. 44 The Hu´anuco Quechua dictionary of Weber et al. (1998), who use c and qu for the velar stop, constitutes an exception. Weber(personal communication 2000) notes a strong resistance against the introduction of k for the velar stop at grassroots level in Peru. 258 3 The Inca Sphere environment (e.g. Ayacucho Quechua opa ‘dumb’; Santiago del Estero Quechua sera- ‘to sew’). In spite of all efforts and good intentions, the development of the Quechua language in Peru (and to a lesser extent in Bolivia and Ecuador) is far from hopeful. Throughout most of the twentieth century the number of Quechua speakers in Peru remained stable in absolute terms, whereas the national population was growing explosively. At the same time, large parts of the country have undergone a language shift from Quechua to Spanish, mainly along generation lines. The Quechua speakers’ wish for social mobility for their children is often heard as an argument for not transmitting the language to the next generation. Bilingualism, seen as an ideal by many language planners, often proved to be a relatively short station between Quechua monolingualism and Spanish monolingualism. Most affected by this process of massive language shift were the Quechua I dialects of the Central Andes of Peru. If in 1940 the percentage of Quechua speakers in the highland sector of the department of Jun´ın was still calculated at 75 per cent of the total population (Rowe 1947), it had fallen to less than 10 per cent in 1993 (Pozzi-Escot 1998: 258). Many varieties of great historical interest, such as (most of) the Huanca dialects and the dialects of Cerro de Pasco and Tarma, are nearing extinction. Quechua speakers can still be found among the older generation, but there is little, if any transmission to the young. At the final stage of the language’sexistence most speakers tend to be women of the eldest generation. Chirinos Rivera (2001) reports on the distribution of languages in Peru at the distrito (municipality) level on the basis of data borrowed from the 1993 census. It appears that even in some of the most Hispanicised areas there are conservative communities which retain a full use of the Quechua language. Examples are the district of Checras in the province of Huaura (department of Lima) and the area of Andamarca, Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca, east of Huancayo and Concepci´on (department of Jun´ın). In the 1980s and early 1990s, political instability and economic insecurity brought profound changes to the Peruvian countryside. As a result, entire communities migrated to urban areas, the Lima agglomeration in particular, as well as other coastal cities. The department of Ayacucho became the epicentre of violence during this period and lost 25 per cent of its population, mostly through migration. These events were followed by a process of back-migration between 1995 and 2000 with possible disruptive effects on the language situation (Chirinos Rivera 2001: 74). Long considered to be a stronghold of Quechua conservatism, rural Ayacucho and Huancavelica are also feeling the effect of language shift to Spanish. From the linguistic perspective, the fate of the Quechua- speaking masses now inhabiting the suburbs and shantytowns of Lima is not known, but the neighbourhood of centres of Hispanicisation, such as Lima, has never been favourable for the maintenance of Quechua (cf. von Gleich 1998). As observed quite 3.3 The Aymaran language family 259 adequately by Cerr´on-Palomino (1989b: 27), ‘Quechua (and Aymara) speakers seem to have taken the project of assimilation begun by the dominating classes and made it their own.’

3.3 The Aymaran language family The languages of the Aymaran family (Aymara, Jaqaru and Cauqui) have been studied somewhat less intensively than those of the Quechuan family with its countless geo- graphic varieties. However, Aymara itself had the good fortune of being the object of study of the Italian Jesuit Ludovico Bertonio, one of the most gifted grammarians of the colonial period. Bertonio wrote two grammars (1603a, b) and a dictionary (1612a), which are still highly relevant today. Another grammatical description from the colonial period is Torres Rubio (1616). In contrast to the name Quechua, there is no likely lexical etymology so far for the name Aymara (also Aimara or Aymar´a). The term was almost certainly derived from an ethnonym, the name of a native group occupying the southern part of the present-day department of Apurimac (now Quechua-speaking). The name of the province of Aymaraes (capital Chalhuanca), one of the administrative subdivisions of the depart- ment of Apurimac, reminds us of this historical background. It is not clear how the name Aymaraes came to be applied to speakers of the Aymara language in general, but in 1567 it was an established practice, as can be deduced from Garci Diez de San Miguel’s report of his inspection (visita)ofthe province of Chucuito (Espinoza Soriano 1964: 14). Garci Diez describes the Aymara of Chucuito, southwest of Lake Titicaca, as well-to-do cattle-raisers, who were relatively numerous. They shared the area with the Uro, who were characterised as poor and dependent on fishery.45 Two other professional groups, the silversmiths and potters, remain undefined ethnically. For more discussion of the history of the denomination Aymara see Cerr´on-Palomino (2000: 27–41). Just as Quechua is also known as runa simi (cf. section 3.2), the Aymara language is sometimes referred to as jaqi46 aru ‘language of man’. This denomination is not to be confounded with that of its smaller relative the Jaqaru language, although, of course, the two terms share a common etymology.

45 It is tempting to identify the Uros of the historical sources as Uru–Chipaya speakers (cf. section 3.6). However, modern evidence shows that an Uro way of life depending on fishery and lake products does not necessarily coincide with a separate ethnic background and linguistic affiliation. Some typical ‘Uros’, such as the ones inhabiting the islands of the Bay of Puno, are in fact Aymara speakers. For a detailed treatment of the problem see Wachtel (1978). 46 In the practical orthography developed for the Aymara language the velar fricative or glottal spirant is represented as j,whereas the uvular fricative is written x (Martin 1988: 25–8, 33). One should be reminded that Aymara j is the same sound as Quechua h. 260 3 The Inca Sphere

BRAZIL

Canta

I U U R A Q Q U Lima A PERU A J C Tupe Ayacucho Cachuy Cuzco

CANCHIS Chalhuanca CANAS Nazca Conima COLLAGUAS Puno Compi Chucuito BOLIVIA Arequipa Juli La Paz A Carumas Y UCHUMATAQU M A R (Iru-Itu) Moquegua Sitajara A Cochabamba Tarata CARANGAS Tacna Oruro San Pedro Jopoqueri de Buenavista Guallatire Morocomarca CHIPAYA Aymaran languages: AYMARA, Potosí C CAUQUI, JAQARU Salinas de Garci Y H Mendoza Uru-Chipaya languages: CHIPAYA, A U UCHUMATAQU (Iru-Itu) I G L A Areas where a former presence of R Aymaran languages is attested by E A substratum, toponymy or historical P records ARGENTINA

Map 6 Distribution of Aymaran and Uru–Chipaya languages

A modern basis for the study of both Aymara and Jaqaru was laid by Hardman and her team of linguists of the University of Florida. Hardman’s grammatical study of Jaqaru (1966, 1983a) was followed by a collective work on Aymara (Hardman, V´asquez and Yapita 1974, 1988). Additional work includes Ebbing (1965) and Porterie-Guti´errez (1988). For Aymara as well, several language courses (e.g. Herrero, Cotari and Mej´ıa 1978; Yapita 1991) and dictionaries have appeared. Examples of the latter are B¨uttner and Condori (1984) for Peruvian Aymara; and Cotari, Mej´ıa and Carrasco (1978), as well as de Lucca (1987) for Bolivian Aymara. The only Jaqaru dictionary so far is Belleza Castro (1995). The parallel structures of the Quechuan and Aymaran languages are discussed in Cerr´on-Palomino (1994a). Recent important publications which appeared after the completion of this section are Cerr´on-Palomino (2000) on the Aymaran family as a whole and Hardman (2000) on Jaqaru.

3.3.1 Past and present distribution Some aspects of the distribution of the Aymaran languages have been discussed in section 3.1. Here we present additional, more specific information. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 261

The original expansion of the Aymaran languages appears to have been comparable in importance to that of the Quechuan languages, with the difference that it remained limited to the central and southern parts of the former Inca empire. In northern Peru and in Ecuador traces of Aymaran presence are sporadic at best. Notwithstanding the fact that some local groups in Ecuador trace their ancestry back to Aymara-speaking migrants (mitimaes) brought by the Incas, no substantial influence of Aymara has been found in their present-day language. The use of cupikaˇ ,anAymara term for ‘red’, in the Cajamarca dialect of Quechua is one of the very few documented cases of presumed Aymara influence in northern Peru.47 Apart from the three Aymaran languages that survive today, other Aymaran languages, or possibly dialects of those mentioned before, were spoken in several localities of the department of Lima until the present century (Canta, Huant´an, Miraflores). The lexicon of the Quechuan dialect of Pacaraos (province of Huaral, Lima; cf. section 3.2.9) is strongly influenced by an Aymaran language. The Quechua dialect presumably spoken in the Lima region, which was described by Santo Tom´as in 1560, also contained lexical items unequivocally derived from an Aymaran language, e.g. hondoma ‘hot bath’, from Aymara hunt’(u) uma48 ‘hot water’, ‘a hot drink’ (cf. Torero 1996). Aymaran toponymy is found in the area of Lima, and also in the Mantaro valley region (department of Jun´ın), inhabited by the ethnic group known as the Huanca. The manuscript of Huarochir´ı (cf. sections 3.1, 3.2.11) contains several direct references to Aymaran-speaking groups in the highland interior of Lima. As we have seen before, evidence of the existence of Aymaran-speaking groups throughout the south of Peru can be found in the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias of the sixteenth century (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965). In these Relaciones afew words belong- ing to the local hahuasimi languages are mentioned (cf. section 3.1). They clearly betray an Aymaran origin, e.g. cabra ‘llama’ (Aymara and Jaqaru qawra ∼ qarwa); asqui ‘good’ (Aymara aski); cf. Torero (1970), Mannheim (1991). Guaman Poma (1615) specifically refers to some Aymara-speaking areas, such as the highlands surrounding Pampachiri in the province of Andahuaylas, and parts of the Huanca region. He, furthermore, provides a number of Aymaran song texts, which have been analysed by Alb´o and Layme (1993; forthcoming) and by Ferrell (1996). The latter author shows that Guaman Poma’sAymara

47 One of the arguments advanced by Middendorf (1891b) in favour of the former presence of Aymara in northern Peru is the frequent use of place names containing the element wari (as in Huari, a town and province in Ancash). Wari means ‘vicu˜na’ in Aymara. However, wari was also the name of the central deity in a religious cult situated in the central and northern highlands of Peru. A relationship with Panoan wari or bari ‘sun’ has been suggested (Torero 1993b: 224). 48 The shape of this expression suggests contact with Aymara itself, not with one of the Aymaran languages spoken in the province of Yauyos. These have hunˇc. ’u, rather than hunt’u for ‘hot’. 262 3 The Inca Sphere wasaseparate linguistic variety, not to be confounded with any of the languages spoken today. He calls it Aimara ayacuchano (‘Ayacucho Aymara’), considering that Guaman Poma was a native of the Lucanas region in the south of the department of Ayacucho (Ferrell 1996: 415).49 It is not certain to what extent Aymaran languages (or even Aymara) were dominant in all of southern Peru, but their presence in at least some areas is hardly a matter of discussion. One such area was the region of Collaguas (see section 3.1). Aymara to- ponymy can also be found elsewhere in the Arequipa region, for instance, in the name of some of Arequipa’s townships, e.g. Umacollo (uma qulyu)‘water-hill’, or of neigh- bouring mountains, e.g. Chachani (caˇˇ cani) ‘mountain of man (or male)’, Anuccarahui (anuqarawi) ‘dog’s meeting place’. Toponyms of unmistakable Aymara origin can also be found in the area of Cuzco, in particular, to the southeast of that city in the provinces of Canas and Canchis, e.g. Tungasuca (tunka suka) ‘ten furrows’, Checacupi (c’iqaˇ kupi) ‘left and right’, Vilcanota (wilyka-n(a) uta) ‘house at/of the sun’. Aymara substratum is strongly present in the lexicon and the morphology of Quechua dialects spoken in the departments of Puno and Arequipa. The Aymara influence is very specific and includes the use of verbal derivational suffixes with their respective vowel- suppression rules, albeit in an attenuated form (cf. Adelaar 1987; Chirinos and Maque 1996). This influence can only be explained by assuming a relatively recent language shift from Aymara to Quechua after extensive bilingualism. It cannot be attributed to borrowing alone. An intertwined situation of Quechuan- and Aymaran-speaking groups can be recon- structed for large areas of central and southern Peru, mostly areas where today only Quechua survives (cf. Mannheim 1991). Close contact between Quechua and Aymara speakers in situations where the use of either language has become linked to a partic- ular social division or economic activity has been found in the Bolivian department of La Paz north of Lake Titicaca. In these situations of language overlapping, either Quechua may hold a higher prestige than Aymara, or the other way round; see Harris (1974), cited in Briggs (1993: 4). Recent findings, e.g. near San Pedro de Buenavista, province of Charcas, Potos´ı, suggest that not all Aymara-speaking communities sur- rounded by Quechua speakers have been identified so far (cf. Howard-Malverde 1995). A meticulous account of the distribution of Aymara and Quechua speakers in Bolivia in the 1990s (including detailed maps) can be found in Alb´o (1995). The maps which are provided distinguish between areas where Aymara has been predominant tradition- ally, areas of colonisation, areas where Aymara is giving way to either Quechua or Spanish, etc.

49 Ferrell considers Ayacucho Aymara to be a manifestation of an alleged, more comprehensive Cuzco Aymara. The reason for this classification remains unclear. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 263

3.3.2 Homeland and expansion The more than usual intensity of past language contact, as attested by Aymaran and Quechuan, indicates that the proto-languages of both groups were spoken either in contiguous areas, or in the same area in a situation of geographic intertwining (cf. section 3.1). Since the homeland of the Quechuan languages has been assigned to the coast and sierra of central Peru, the Aymaran homeland could not have been located too far from it. And, as the Aymaran expansion, subsequently, went south, not north, it made sense to look for an Aymaran homeland immediately to the south of that of Quechua. Following this line of reasoning, Torero (1970) tentatively assigned Proto-Aymaran to the coastal civilisation of Nazca and the interior Andean region of Ayacucho. At the same time, he allowed for some overlapping in the province of Yauyos (department of Lima), where archaic varieties of Aymaran and Quechuan have co-existed until the present day. The geographic configuration delineated above is not incompatible with the alternative hypothesis of an original Aymaran homeland further north, in the heart of central Peru itself. This scenario would imply a partial displacement of the Proto-Aymaran population by Quechuan speakers somewhere at the beginning of the present era. It is favoured by the large number of Aymaran place names and borrowings in central Peru and the intense contact that we must assume to have existed between the two language groups. The subsequent expansion of Aymaran-speaking peoples, which may have taken place between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, could have occurred either on their own initiative, or under the pressure of Quechua-speaking people coming from the north. The situation of dominance which the Aymara held in the Bolivian highlands until 1600 has already been mentioned. A comparison of the colonial evidence (Bouysse- Cassagne 1975) with the present-day distribution of the Andean languages clearly shows that Aymara must have become superseded by Quechua in large parts of the southern and eastern highlands of Bolivia during the last four centuries. A similar process took place in many parts of southern Peru. On their way south the Aymaran languages occupied the place of other, previously present languages. For instance, in the central-eastern part of the (province of Mariscal Nieto, around the communities of Carumas, Calacoa and Cuchumbaya) and in some areas north of Lake Titicaca Aymara replaced local varieties of Puquina. However, since the beginning of the colonial period, no further expansion of importance has been reported. Probably as a result of their more homogeneous background, the present-day Aymara have developed a strongly articulated ethnic identity, in contrast with most of the Quechua-speaking peoples that surround them. The latter largely originated from different ethnic groups that became Quechuanised. At the arrival of the Spaniards, most of the Aymara were organised in chieftaincies, some of which had succeeded in retaining a certain autonomy in spite of their subju- gation by the Incas (cf. Tschopik 1946). Of particular historical importance was the 264 3 The Inca Sphere kingdom of the Lupaca, centred around the town of Chucuito, southwest of Lake Titicaca. It is relatively well known thanks to Garci Diez de San Miguel’s report of 1567 (see section 3.3.1), which contains valuable data about the organisation of an Aymara chieftaincy and its colonies in the coastal region. Shortly after the arrival in 1568 of the first Jesuits in Peru, a mission of that Order was established at Juli in the Lupaca area. Through the work of Bertonio, among others, the Lupaca dialect of Aymara became representative of the language as a whole.

3.3.3 Internal variation in the Aymaran language family As we have seen in section 3.1, the northern and southern branches of the Aymaran linguistic family are separated by a considerable geographical distance. This separation is not only geographical, it is also a matter of demography.The demographic factor makes the comparison between the Aymara language, on one hand, and its two small northern relatives Jaqaru and Cauqui, on the other, a rather unbalanced one. As the incipient dialectological studies progress, new differentiating elements may emerge within the Aymara domain itself. So far, a moderate amount of internal variation in terms of dialects has been detected (Briggs 1993). Jaqaru and Cauqui are characterised by unusually rich obstruent inventories, which are identical for both varieties. The Aymara obstruent inventory, although relatively complex, is less elaborate. All three languages distinguish between plain, aspirated and glottalised obstruents. But, whereas Aymara has five different articulations (bilabial, alveolar, velar and uvular stops; palatal affricates), Jaqaru and Cauqui have eight (the abovementioned five; alveopalatal stops; alveolar and retroflex affricates). Furthermore, Jaqaru and Cauqui have two sibilants (alveolar and palatal), whereas Aymara has only one (alveolar). The status of the additional obstruent series in Jaqaru and in Cauqui, either as cases of conservatism or as innovations, has been a topic of debate. As it stands now, only the retroflex affricate series seems to bear out its conservative nature. The velar nasal has phonemic status in Jaqaru, in Cauqui, and in a very limited number of Aymara dialects (see below). Most observations concur in suggesting that Jaqaru and Cauqui are mutually intelli- gible to a great extent, and that the extent of the lexical, morphological and phonological differences existing between them is limited (see section 3.1). Nevertheless, the distinct nature of the two varieties is highlighted by Hardman (1975, 1978). She points, among other things, at an innovative process of vowel harmonisation in suffixes that sets Jaqaru apart from both Cauqui and Aymara. It is illustrated by object-marked verb forms such as Jaqaru irp-k-utu ‘he takes me along’, in contrast with Cauqui irp-k-itu50 and Aymara

50 The use of an ongoing event marker -k- is required for present tense in the central Peruvian members of the Aymaran family. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 265 irp-itu (Hardman 1975: 440). Another example of this vowel harmony can be found in the Jaqaru verbal nominalisation affix -nuˇsu, e.g. in irp-nuˇsu ‘to take along’, which corresponds to Cauqui irp-niˇsu. In her dictionary of the Jaqaru language, Belleza Castro (1995: 55–6) observes that the alveolar affricate series of Jaqaru is regularly matched by the retroflex series in Cauqui, e.g. Jaqaru haca-, Cauqui haˇc. a- ‘to cry’ (cf. Aymara haˇca-); Jaqaru c’a:ka, Cauqui c.ˇ’a:ka ‘bone’ (cf. Aymara c’akaˇ , c’akˇ ha). It does not mean, however, that the alveolar affricate series is entirely absent from Cauqui (e.g. Jaqaru, Cauqui ac’iki ‘cold’). A lexical feature of Cauqui is the use of a deictic pronoun uwa ‘that’, where both Aymara and Jaqaru have uka (Belleza Castro 1995: 185). Unfortunately, only incidental data are available for Cauqui. A substantial vocabulary and a grammatical overview of the language would be needed in order to appreciate the correspondences. As long as this condition is not met, any reconstruction of Proto-Aymaran will remain tentative. Present-day dialectal variation in the Aymara language area has been studied in a comprehensive manner by Briggs (1976, 1993); for a critical assessment of her work see Cerr´on-Palomino (1995a). In-depth studies of individual Aymara dialects are scarce, except for the variety spoken in and around the Bolivian governmental residence city La Paz. The Aymara of the department of La Paz in Bolivia lies at the basis of the most authoritative and comprehensive studies of that language, such as Hardman et al. (1974, 1988), Herrero et al. (1978) and Yapita (1991). Porterie-Guti´errez (1988) deals with Peruvian varieties (that of Chucuito, in particular), and some work has been published on the Chilean variety (Clair-Vassiliadis1976; Poblete and Salas 1997; Salas and Poblete 1997). Dictionaries tend to combine lexical items from different localities, although the selection is usually limited by national boundaries. Briggs’s work contains a wealth of data concerning variation in the Aymara language at all grammatical levels. On the basis of her findings, she proposes two classifications of the geographic varieties of Aymara (Briggs 1993: 388–98). The first classification distinguishes between northern Aymara (roughly coinciding with the varieties of the de- partment of Puno in Peru and La Paz in Bolivia), southern Aymara (in the departments of Oruro and Potos´ı, Bolivia, and in northern Chile), and an intermediate group consisting of the dialects spoken in the Peruvian departments of Moquegua and Tacna on the south- western Pacific slopes. These dialects are said to have characteristics in common with both the northern and the southern group, there being particularly important similarities between the dialect spoken in the interior of Tacna (Tarata) and that of the Carangas area in western Oruro (Briggs 1993: 401). The second classification proposed establishes a contrast between a central (supposedly innovative) dialect group in the area surrounding the city of La Paz and a peripheral dialect group comprising all the outlying areas. Many cases of variation registered by Briggs seem to concern individual lexical items and morphemes, rather than to reflect regular changes. Some cases, however, do indicate 266 3 The Inca Sphere systematic developments, such as the voicing of plain stops after nasals and laterals in Salinas de Garci Mendoza in southern Oruro, for instance, in tunga ‘ten’ (< tunka), ambara ‘hand’ (< ampara), and qal y-da- ‘to begin’ (< qal y-ta-); cf. Cerr´on-Palomino (1995a: 122). As has been anticipated, there is one case of dialect variation that, in particular, deserves the attention of historical comparative linguists, that is, the development of a velar nasal in non-automatic environments.51 At least three Aymara dialect areas, Tarata (in Tacna, Peru), Carangas (in Oruro, Bolivia) and the Aymara-speaking part of northern Chile have preserved a first-person possessive and a first-person future subject ending in -ŋa, e.g. uta-ŋa ‘my house’, sar-x. a-ŋa ‘I shall go (home)’. They share this feature with Jaqaru and Cauqui, where the same suffix is used. Both in Tarata Aymara and in Jaqaru the sound ŋ is also found intervocalically in a small number of lexical items (e.g. Tarata aŋanu ‘face’, ‘cheek’; Jaqaru iŋaca ‘servant’). In spite of the limited phonotactic possibilities of the distinctive velar nasal – it only occurs between vowels, of which the second one may or may not be suppressed – there seems to be no reason not to reconstruct it for Proto-Aymaran.52 Already in the Lupaca variety described by Bertonio (1603a, b) most velar nasals had been replaced by a velar fricative h. Other dialects eliminated the velar nasal with its low phonemic load in different ways. The first-person possessive and first-person future endings *-ŋa were replaced by elements such as -ha,-x. a,-nya and/or vowel length, and exhibit considerable dialectal variation at this time. Aspirated and glottalised obstruents are widely used in the Aymaran languages. Both categories are held to represent features inherited from the proto-language. However, although the presence of aspiration or glottalisation is stable in many lexical items and affixes, it can be variable in others. Examples are the first-person non-future subject marker -t ha and its homophone, the ablative case marker -t ha. These suffixes have lost their aspiration in La Paz Aymara, whereas it has been retained in most other Aymara dialects and in Jaqaru. The loss of aspiration brought about a formal coincidence of these elements with the second-person non-future subject marker -ta and the nominaliser -ta, but is, at the same time, responsible for the different morphophonemic behaviour of

51 An automatic environment would be the position before k within a root (e.g. in tunka ‘ten’), where the nasal is velar by assimilation. 52 Cerr´on-Palomino (1994a: 111; 1995a: 114–17) observes that the velar nasal sound is followed by avelar fricative in several Aymara dialects (e.g. aŋhanu ‘face’ in Guallatire, northern Chile; and a first-person future marker -ŋha in Conima, Huancan´e, Peru). He also points at the correspondence between Aymara manqha [maŋqha] ‘under’, ‘inside’ and Jaqaru maŋa ‘below’, and concludes that the nasal velar in Aymaran must take its origin from a preconsonantal allophone of the plain nasal n.However, in view of such pairs as Jaqaru yaŋa and Quechua yana ‘companion’, and Jaqaru yaŋ-iˇsi-, Quechua yana-pa- ‘help’, we are inclined to opt either for an inherited though obsolescent distinction, or for a retraction of the alveolar nasal in intervocalic position before a. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 267 the two pairs of suffixes. The aspiration, whether present or not, entails the loss of the vowel -a in a suffix before certain independent suffixes,53 such as -wa, e.g. mun-t-wa {mun(a)-th(a)-wa} ‘I want it’, but mun-ta-wa {mun(a)-ta-wa} ‘you want it’.

3.3.4 Salient features of the Aymaran language family The Aymaran language family consists of languages which are structurally very similar to Quechua. The similarities between the two groups are so obvious and so pervasive that they can only be explained by a long period of shared history and complex mutual relations. The structural similarities are not merely superficial. They consist of highly specific semantic and syntactic parallels that, if not due to common origin, must be the result of long and intensive bilingual interaction. More than 20 per cent of the lexicon that can be reconstructed for the proto-languages of both families is either identical, or nearly so. The reconstructed phoneme inventory of Proto-Aymaran is also partly identical to that of Proto-Quechuan, although there are differences which deserve close attention. It is remarkable, under these circumstances, that the languages of the Aymaran family have managed to preserve two characteristics that set them apart not only from Quechua, but also from the other known languages of the Andean region. These characteristics belong to the domain of phonotactics and morphophonemics. Aymaran roots, both verbal and nominal, must end in a vowel. In order to meet this condition, borrowed nouns with a final consonant in the original language become Aymaranised by the addition of a final vowel, regardless of whether the language borrowed from is Quechua, Spanish, or any other. This process is still productive today, and it has been in existence in the Aymaran languages for as long as evidence is obtainable by projection into the past.

(119) Proto-Quechua *paˇc.ak ‘hundred’ Aymara pataka 54 Jaqaru paˇc.aka Proto-Quechua *kuntur ‘condor’ Aymara kunturi Jaqaru k´untiri Spanish habas ‘beans’ Aymara hawasa Jaqaru h´awaˇsa

The second characteristic concerns the allomorphic shape of roots and suffixes. Like Quechua, the Aymaran languages are predominantly agglutinative, using suffixes almost exclusively. Unlike Quechua, however, these suffixes are accompanied by rules leading to the suppression of a preceding vowel or, under given circumstances, of vowels belonging to the suffix itself. From a synchronic point of view, the vowel suppression rules are seldom phonologically motivated. The following examples of derivation of the verb

53 For the notion of independent suffixes see sections 3.2.6 and 3.3.6. 54 The Jaqaru forms are from Belleza Castro (1995). 268 3 The Inca Sphere apa- ‘to bear’, ‘to carry’ illustrate the different behaviour of Aymara suffixes with an initial s. The suffix -su- ‘outward motion’ must be preceded by vowel suppression, the suffix -si- ‘reflexive’ has no such effect:

(120) ap-su- ‘to take out’ apa-si- ‘to take one’s share’, ‘to take for oneself’

The corresponding suffixes in Jaqaru are -ˇsu- and -iˇsi-, respectively. Both suffixes trigger vowel suppression.

(121) ap-ˇsu- ‘to take out’ ap-iˇsi- ‘to take one’s share’, ‘to take for oneself’

It would be tempting to seek an explanation for the different behaviour of Aymara -si- and -su- in the Jaqaru facts. However, this does not seem to be possible. The presence of a suffix-initial vowel i in Jaqaru -iˇsi-isdue to innovative vowel harmony, which could develop precisely in environments where the vowel was preserved at first (*apa- si-ˇ > ap-iˇsi-). Some cases of vowel suppression may eventually be explained by other diachronic developments that are not yet understood. From a phonological point of view, it is significant that Aymara suffixes with an initial l y or y are never preceded by vowel suppression and with other resonants only exceptionally so (Briggs 1993: 55–6). The Aymaran vowel suppressions can produce spectacular sequences of consonants, not separated by vowels even at the phonetic level. This occurs when several suffixes triggering vowel suppression appear in a sequence. Consider the following example from La Paz Aymara:

(122) hani-w hisk-t’-k-t-ti {hani-w(a) hiskh(i)-t’(a)-k(a)-t(a)-ti} not-AF ask-M-AN-1S-NE ‘I did not ask him.’ (Yapita 1991: 75)

The three suffixes -t’a-, -ka- and -ta trigger the suppression of a preceding vowel. Additionally, the first-person subject suffix -ta loses its own vowel before independent suffixes, such as -ti. This loss can be explained phonologically by the fact that -ta originally began with an aspirated t h,asitstill does in many dialects.55 The suffix -ti itself exerts no influence on the preceding vowel. The aspiration of k h in hisk hi-is also lost in the process. The suffix -wa loses its vowel because it marks the end of a major preverbal constituent of the sentence. Although Aymara and Jaqaru differ in the inventory of their suffixes and the nature of the accompanying morphophonemic rules, vowel suppression plays a central role in both languages.

55 Aspiration is sometimes associated with vowel loss in the Aymaran languages. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 269

Table 3.6 Jaqaru personal reference markers

Pronouns Possessive endings Imperative

1 pers. na -ŋa-Vŋa 2 pers. huma -ma -ma 3 pers. upa -pha -pa 4 pers. hiwsa -sa -Vtna

In contrast, the structure of roots is relatively simple. Root-internal consonant clusters may consist of two consonants at the most (although Jaqaru has some exceptions). Root- initial clusters do not occur. In comparison to Quechua, Aymaran roots tend to contain more open syllables. In Aymara the possibilities of clustering (that is, previous to the ap- plication of any vowel suppression rules) are limited. When root-internal clusters contain a stop, it is always the second member in the cluster. Clusters of stops and/or affricates do not normally occur (Martin 1988: 44–7). Jaqaru is less restrictive in this respect. In the domain of morphology, the Aymaran languages are characterised, among other things, by a fourfold division of the category grammatical person, based on the inclusion or non-inclusion of speaker and addressee, respectively (cf. Hardman et al. 1988: 18). The system comprises four basic units: first person (+ speaker, – addressee), second person (+ addressee, – speaker), third person (– addressee, – speaker), and fourth person (+ addressee, + speaker). The Aymaran fourth person coincides with what is known in linguistic literature as an inclusive first person plural. There are no specific endings for the exclusive first person plural, which, apart from the optional presence of plural marking, are the same as the first-person-singular endings. Each of the four units is represented by specific underived morphemes, which surface in the shape of the personal pronouns, in the nominal possessive endings and in parts of the verbal paradigm. Table 3.6 gives a synopsis of the basic personal pronouns, possessive endings and verbal imperative endings in Jaqaru (Hardman 1983a). (‘V’ indicates that the vowel preceding the suffix is preserved; otherwise, suppression of the preceding vowel is required.) Number distinctions do not play a fundamental role in the Aymaran personal reference system. The three basically singular pronouns (1–3) can be pluralised by means of a nominal plural marker: -naka in Aymara; -kuna (as in Quechua) in Jaqaru. In this way, a secondary distinction is created between the inclusive fourth person and the (exclusive) plural of the first person. The pronoun ‘we (exclusive)’ is na-naka in Aymaraand na-kuna in Jaqaru; ‘we (inclusive)’ is hiwasa in Aymara and hiwsa in Jaqaru. Possessive endings cannot be pluralised, except periphrastically. Verbal endings have no plural counterparts either, but it is possible to express the notion of plurality internally in the verb form, as in Pichacani (Puno) Aymara laru-si-px. -t h-wa (laugh-RF-PL-1S-AF) ‘we (excl.) laugh at him.’ 270 3 The Inca Sphere

3.3.5 Aymara phonology The orthography currently in use for modern Aymara presents a number of distinct elements, which have become widely accepted. It includes notations such as j for the glottal (or velar) voiceless fricative, and x (sometimes also jj) for the uvular voiceless fricative. Aspiration is either written as a double apostrophe (”) or as h.Inour discussion of Aymara (and Jaqaru) we continue to use the symbols that we have used so far, namely, h for the glottal (or velar) fricative, x. for the uvular fricative, raised h for aspiration and raised y for palatalisation, in order to help preserve the unity of the presentation and facilitate the comparison with other Andean languages, such as Quechua. The vowel system of Aymara is trivocalic and consists of a low vowel a and two high vowels, front unrounded i and back rounded u.AsinQuechua, the high vowels have mid allophones in the environment of a uvular consonant. Vowel length is distinctive. There are three long vowels, a:, i:, u:.Vowel length plays a role in the morphology (see section 3.3.6). It can also, though seldom, be part of the phonological makeup of root morphemes, in which case the vowel is almost always a::

(123) cakaˇ ‘bridge’ ca:kaˇ ‘stem of the quinua’

A frequent source of vowel length in Aymara is the optional suppression of y between same vowels in the sequences aya and uyu.Variation of the type aya ∼ a:, uyu ∼ u: has been recorded from the sixteenth century onwards. Nevertheless, the forms with vowel length have not succeeded in replacing those with internal y,which are still predominant today.56

(124) contemporary Bertonio (1612a) maya ∼ ma: maya ∼ maa ‘one’ tiyi ∼ ti: tiy ‘cave’ suyu ∼ su: suyu ∼ suu ‘parcel of land’, ‘share of work’

Long vowels are also found in compound expressions as a result of sandhi, when there is a succession of vowels without an intervening consonant:

(125) hiˇchu:ru ‘today’ from hiˇcha ‘now’, uru ‘day’

The consonant inventory of Aymara is very similar to that of the Quechua II dialects surrounding it (Cuzco Quechua, Bolivian Quechua). The consonant inventory of La Paz Aymara is represented in table 3.7 (cf. Yapita 1991: xiv).

56 Both the existence of vowel length in Aymara and its use there are strongly reminiscent of the Quechua I dialects. This is not the only respect in which Aymara resembles Quechua I, rather than Quechua II (cf. Cerr´on-Palomino 1994a). 3.3 The Aymaran language family 271

Table 3.7 La Paz Aymara consonant inventory

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular

Plain p tckq ˇ Obstruents Aspirated ph th cˇh kh qh Glottalised p’ t’c’ ˇ k’ q’ Fricatives s h x. Laterals l ly Nasals m n ny Vibrant r Glides w y

Stress in Aymara is basically penultimate and has been described as non-phonemic (Martin 1988: 43). Long vowels in word-final position attract stress, and hence they are sometimes interpreted as sequences of like vowels. Indeed, such cases are usually the product of a reduction, as in (126):

(126) sar´a: {sara-V: < *sara-ŋa}57 go-1S.F ‘I shall go’ Deviations from these basic rules are not uncommon. When a word ends in a consonant or a sequence of consonants, this is normally the result of syntactic vowel suppression (see below). In those cases stress is on the final vowel. An exception is the second-person imperative in La Paz Aymara, which ends in a consonant but has penultimate stress:58

(127) s´ara-m go-2S.IM ‘Go!’ The vowel suppression rules of La Paz Aymara can be divided into those that precede and those that follow the assignment of stress. As we saw (section 3.3.4), morphophonemic vowel suppression has a long history in the Aymaran languages. It occurs at word-internal morpheme boundaries, and stress is assigned afterwards.59 For

57 The form sara-ŋa is preserved in the Aymara-speaking areas of interior Tacna (Peru) and Carangas (Bolivia). 58 Briggs (1993: 80–3) observes that the final vowel of the second-person imperative ending - m (<*-ma), which is normally absent, may be restored in some cases. It may lead to cases of antepenultimate stress because the characteristic stress pattern of the imperative remains unchanged (e.g. ap´a-ni-m ∼ ap´a-ni-ma ‘bring it here’). 59 Vowel suppression within the root is exceptional in Aymara. An example is walyaqi- ‘to boil’, which is reduced to walyx. - in vowel suppressing derivations. 272 3 The Inca Sphere instance, in (128) the first root vowel is stressed, after the suffix -t(a) ‘first-person sub- ject’ loses its vowel by suppression before the attenuating suffix -x. a, the root curaˇ - ‘to give’ loses its final vowel by suppression before -t(a), and stress is assigned to the next available vowel on the left. In (129) the second-person subject suffix -ta does not lose its vowel before -x. a, and, as it stands in penultimate position, it also bears the stress.

(128) c´ˇur-t-x.a {cur(a)-t(a)-xˇ .a} give-1S-TO60 ‘I gave it.’ (129) cur-t´ˇ a-x.a {cur(a)-ta-xˇ .a} give-2S-TO ‘You gave it.’

In contrast, syntactically motivated vowel suppression affects the final vowel of any major constituent of a sentence which does not occupy the final position in that sentence. The final constituent, usually the verb, remains unaffected. Stress is assigned before vowel suppression and, if present at all, it is positioned on the last vowel in the word that is actually pronounced61:

y (130) kun´a-t huk’amp-r´ak qul qmun-x.-t´a-sti {kuna-t(a) huk’amp(i)-Ø-rak(i) qulyq(i)-Ø mun(a)-x.(a)-ta-sti} what-AB more-Z-AD money-Z want-CM-2S-CT ‘And how much more money will you need?’ (Yapita 1991: 99)

Words consisting of more than two syllables that occupy a non-final position in a noun phrase are also affected by the suppression of their final vowel:

(131) c’iy´ˇ aruta ´ {c’iyar(a)ˇ uta} black house ‘a black house’

Aymara, furthermore, has a morphosyntactic rule of vowel suppression, which affects the final vowel of a nominal base (consisting of a bare noun, a noun followed by one or

60 The effect of the topic marker here has been characterised as ‘attenuation’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 280). 61 Aymara dialects may differ in the frequency and obligatory nature of syntactic vowel suppression. Porterie-Guti´errez (1988: 46) qualifies the loss of final vowels in the dialect of Chucuito as ‘very common’ (tr`es courant). In La Paz Aymara it is considered a standard practice (cf. Yapita1991). 3.3 The Aymaran language family 273 more nominal affixes, or a nominalised verb) and identifies it as the direct object of a transitive verb or the geographic goal of a motion verb. In the literature, these forms are referred to as ‘zero complements’ (e.g. Briggs 1993: 141–3). Zero complements nor- mally precede the verb. They can be followed by independent suffixes, which themselves lose their vowel due to the syntactic vowel suppression mentioned above:

(132) khit-s suy-paˇca {khit(i)-Ø-s(a) suy(a)-paˇca} who-Z-IR wait-DP.3S ‘He must be waiting for someone?’ (Yapita 1991: 51) (133) uk sar-ta {uk(a)-Ø sar(a)-ta} that place-Z go-1S ‘I went there.’ (Yapita 1991: 35)

The following sentence exemplifies the use of khiti ‘who’ in the subject role, where there is no zero complement vowel suppression:

(134) khiti-s uta-r sara-ni {khiti-s(a) uta-r(u) sara-ni} who-IR house-AL go-F.3S ‘Who will go to the house?’ (Yapita 1991: 42)

It is often not possible to distinguish between zero-complement vowel suppression and syntactically based vowel suppression, in particular when dealing with heads of noun phrases not followed by independent suffixes.62 The word qul yq(i) in (130) is a case in point. As can be seen from this example, as well as from k hit-s in (132), vowel suppres- sion, both syntactically motivated and in its function as a zero complement, can produce consonant clusters (including sequences of same consonants) in word-final position. Cerr´on-Palomino (1994a: 58–9) situates the issue of the zero complement in Aymara within the context of a more general rule deleting the final vowel of preverbal com- plements.63 In that perspective, the zero complement could be interpreted as a noun unmarked for case which indicates a direct object or goal. It is true that the case markers -na ‘genitive-locative’ and -ta/-t ha ‘ablative’ lose their vowel before any independent

62 The literature is silent about the relation between zero-complement vowel suppression and stress assignment. Nevertheless, there is a general rule to the effect that in a (full) word form stress is on the penultimate vowel but remains on that vowel when the final vowel is suppressed. There are exceptions, such as the second-person imperative (e.g. s´ara-m ‘go!’), but the zero complement is not among those exceptions. 63 Briggs (1993: 142) points at the occurrence of postverbal zero complements in some varieties of Aymara. This should lead to a different formulation of the rule in question. 274 3 The Inca Sphere suffix, thus exhibiting a behaviour parallel to that of the zero complement. If not followed by an independent suffix, that vowel is also lost due to syntactic vowel suppression (see above). In contrast, the case marker -ru ‘allative’ does retain its vowel before independent suffixes, as is illustrated in (135):

(135) tumasi-x. uta-ru-w waka-nak anaki-sk-i {tumasi-x.(a) uta-ru-w(a) waka-nak(a)-Ø anaki-sk(a)-i} Thomas-TO house-AL-AF cow-PL-Z herd-PR-3S ‘Thomas is leading the cows home.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino 1994a: 59)

Although most affixes in Aymara begin with a consonant or a consonant cluster, there are also a few highly frequent verbal suffixes with an initial vowel i, among others:

(136) -i ‘third-person non-future subject’ -iri ‘agentive nominaliser’ -it(a)- ‘first-person object’

This i-vowel replaces a preceding a, merges with a preceding i, and is eliminated by a preceding u. This is illustrated in (137):

(137) ap-iri ‘carrier’ ap-i ‘he/she carries’ [apa- ‘to carry’] hith-iri ‘slider’ hith-i ‘he/she slides’ [hithi- ‘to slide’] qapu-ri ‘spinner’ qapu ‘he/she spins’ [qapu- ‘to spin’]

3.3.6 Aymara grammar Aymara morphology is mainly based on the use of suffixes; it is transparent, as well as regular. Compounds occasionally occur, but these are limited to some common ex- pressions, such as hiˇchu:ru ‘today’, see section 3.3.5 (125), and in place names, as in (138):

(138) umalsu ‘Umalsu’64 < uma hal-su ‘source’, ‘well’ [uma ‘water’; hala- ‘to run’; -su- ‘outward movement’]

Word order (modifier–head) and constituent order (predominantly SOV) are the same as in Quechua. The inventory and the semantics of morphological categories, and even syntactic constructions involving the use of several morphological markers, are strik- ingly similar, even though in most cases there is no formal correspondence. As in Quechua, there is a set of independent suffixes in addition to specific verbal and nominal morphology. Nevertheless, there are also some structural differences that deserve to be men- tioned. Aymara suffix order is often less rigid than Quechua suffix order. Some of the

64 Umalsu is the name of a settlement in the northern part of the department of Moquegua (Peru). 3.3 The Aymaran language family 275 functions reserved for independent suffixes in Quechua are expressed in Aymara within the verbal paradigm. The verbal derivational morphology of Aymara is richer than that of Quechua, especially with respect to categories of space. In Quechua the verbal system of personal reference marking that encodes both subject and object can be maintained in nominalisations and in subordinate verbs. This option is not found in Aymara, which in such cases only has the possessive personal markers at its disposal. As a result, only one participant can be indicated explicitly. In comparison to Quechua and Jaqaru, the Aymara switch-reference system is in decay. The functions of the verb ‘to be’ in Aymara are not represented lexically, as in Quechua, but morphologically. Aymara has two distinct types of verbalisation which compensate for the absence of averb ‘to be’. One of these types is used in equations, the other one applies to locative expressions. Equation (nominal predication) is indicated by lengthening the final vowel of a noun or noun phrase.

(139) hanq’u-:-nya white-CV-IF ‘to be white’ h (140) huma-x. k iti-:-ta-sa {huma-x.akhiti-:-ta-sa} you-TO who-CV-2S-IR ‘Who are you?’ (Yapita 1991: 90)

The lengthened vowel is retained before suffixes triggering vowel suppression. In such cases length is not always perceived, but the vowel itself remains intact. In spite of its morphological character, the use of this verbalisation by lengthening is very much reminiscent of that of the copula ka-inQuechua.65 Equations are zero-marked when the verb has a third-person subject and no affixes other than independent suffixes accompany the predicate (141). Otherwise, the vowel length marker is required (142).

(141) haˇc’a-wa big-AF ‘It is big.’ (142) hani-w haˇc’a-:-k-i-ti {hani-w(a) haˇc’a-:-k(a)-i-ti} not-AF big-CV-AN-3S-NE ‘It is not big.’ (Yapita 1991: 134)

65 In the province of Omasuyos, northeast of Lake Titicaca, Herrero et al. (1978: level 1: 126) have recorded an allomorph -ya-, instead of vowel length, before morphemes that begin with vowel length or consist of vowel length themselves; for instance, in yati-ˇc-iri-ya-:-wa ‘I shall be a teacher’, where vowel length indicates first-person subject future tense. This is confirmed by Briggs (1993: 174) for the town of Compi (La Paz). 276 3 The Inca Sphere

A striking parallel with Quechua is the habitual past tense, in which verbalisation by lengthening is applied to agentive nominalisation forms in -(i)ri. (Compare the Quechua agentive in -q followed by the copula ka-.)

(143) kuna ura-s uta-r hut-x.-iri-:-ta {kuna ura-s(a) uta-r(u) hut(a)-x.(a)-iri-:-ta} what time-IR house-AL come-CM-AG-CV-2S ‘Atwhat time did you use to come home?’ (Yapita 1991: 89)

Locative and possessive verbalisation is brought about by adding a suffix -ka-tothe short form of the locative/genitive case marker -n(a). See the examples in (144) and (145):

(144) aka-na aka-n-ka- {aka-na}{aka-n(a)-ka-} this.place-L this.place-L-LV ‘here’, ‘in this place’ ‘to be here’, ‘to be in this place’ (145) aka isi-x. huma-n-k-i-wa {aka isi-x.(a) huma-n(a)-k(a)-i-wa} this clothes-TO you-L-LV-3S-AF ‘These clothes are yours.’ (Yapita 1991: 88)

A further derivation, involving multiple verbalisations separated by a nominalisation, is illustrated in (146).

(146) aka-n-k-iri-:-t-wa {aka-n(a)-k(a)-iri-:-t(a)-wa} this.place-L-LV-AG-CV-2S-AF ‘I belong here’, ‘I am a local person.’

In the early seventeenth century, Bertonio registered a verb canca˜na (kanka-nya). This verb doubtless had a rather specific lexical meaning, ‘to be in essence’, beyond the concept of a simple equation. However, according to Bertonio, janko˜na (hanq’u-:-nya) and janko canca˜na (hanq’u kanka-nya), ‘whiteness’, ‘to be white’, were equivalent constructions.66

66 Cerr´on-Palomino (1994a: 78, 128) proposes a historical derivation of both the copula verbaliser by lengthening and locational -ka- from the root *kanka-. However, Jaqaru (see section 3.3.10) has -w(a)- for the copula verbaliser, whereas it expresses location in the same way as in Aymara. In both languages, the two markers in question are formally far apart, so that derivation from *kanka-isconceivable only by assuming a series of ad hoc changes. At the same time, it seems plausible to assume that the root kanka- could have been derived from a hypothetical *ka-n-ka- {ka-n(a)-ka-}‘to be in a state or place’ (*ka); cf. aka ‘this place’, uka ‘that place’. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 277

As in Quechua, Aymara verbalisation comprises two more options, transformative verbalisation (‘to become X’) and factitive verbalisation (‘to make something X’). The suffixes that indicate these types of verbalisation are, respectively, -pta- and -caˇ -. The latter is homophonous with its Quechua equivalent.

(147) wali-pta-nya good-TF-IF ‘to recover’ (148) uta-ˇca-nya house-FA-IF ‘to roof a house’

Aymara nouns can be marked for possessor. The first-person (‘my’) ending varies between -ha and -x. a (or lengthening of a preceding vowel) in La Paz, and -ŋa or -nya locally. The second-, third- and fourth-person endings are -ma,-pa, and -sa, respectively. The plural marker -naka is optional and pluralises the referent noun. Unlike Quechua -kuna, the Aymara plural marker normally precedes the possessive endings, although the opposite order is also allowed.

(149) wawa-naka-ha wawa-ha-naka child-PL-1P child-1P-PL ‘my children’ ‘my children’ (Briggs 1993: 127–8)

Possession as a characteristic (‘owner of’, ‘having’) is expressed by means of a suffix -ni (the semantic equivalent of Quechua -yuq). It is frequently found in place names (Huancarani, ). Its use in numerals, where it connects digits, tens or hundreds to larger units, is illustrated in:

(150) tunka paya-ni ten two-OS ‘twelve’ (151) waranq pa: pataka-ni {waranq(a) pa(y)a pataka-ni} thousand two hundred-OS ‘2,200’ (Briggs 1988: 176)

Syntactic relations in the sentence are marked by case, except for the subject role which remains unmarked. Case markers are added to the last element, normally the head, of a noun phrase. Apart from the zero complement case marker (cf. section 3.3.5), Aymara has an allative case marker -ru,which indicates an indirect object or a direction (‘towards’); an ablative case marker -ta or -t ha,which indicates separation (‘from’); 278 3 The Inca Sphere an instrumental–comitative case marker -mpi (locally -nti) ‘with’; and a benefactive case marker -taki ‘for’. Similarity is expressed by the morpheme -hama (e.g. in kun- hama ‘how?’ from kuna ‘what?’). The suffixes -kama ‘until’ and -layku ‘because of’, ‘for the sake of’ are used as their Quechua counterparts -kama and -rayku (cf. section 3.2.6). Locative and genitive case are both represented by the marker -na. The possessive construction is formed in the same way as in Quechua, that is, by doubly marking the possessor and the possessed.

(152) hupa-n phuˇca-pa-wa {hupa-n(a) phuˇca-pa-wa} he/she-G daughter-3P-AF ‘She is his (or her) daughter.’ (Briggs 1988: 227)

Aymara verbal derivational morphology is rich in possibilities for expressing cate- gories related to space. As in Quechua I, Aymara has a set of four verbal affixes denoting the direction of a motion ‘inward’, ‘outward’, ‘upward’ and ‘downward’. This is illus- trated in (153) with forms derived from the verb ira- ‘to carry small objects’:

(153) ira-nta- ‘to introduce small objects’, ‘to fail to recover invested money’ ir-su- ‘to take out small objects’ ir-ta- ‘to lift or pick up small objects’ ira-qa- ‘to put down small objects’, ‘to lower a price’, ‘to snatch away’

As can be seen, the suffixes -su- and -ta-67 suppress the preceding vowel, whereas -nta- and -qa-donot. These suffixes show a tendency to be used idiomatically. For instance, although the verb irpa- ‘to lead’, ‘to conduct’ can be modified by the same four derivations, the derived form irp-ta- usually has an idiomatic inchoative interpretation ‘to help someone on his feet’, ‘to help someone make a start’. According to Cotari et al. (1978) and B¨uttner and Condori (1984), the form preferably used for ‘to lead upwards’ is irp-kata- (see below for the meaning of -kata-). In addition to the four directional suffixes just mentioned, Aymara has several ver- bal derivational affixes relating to space, among them, -kata- ‘motion across’, ‘frontal motion’, -kipa- ‘contouring motion’, -naqa- ‘motion in several directions’, -nuku- ‘abandonment’, -nuqa ‘act of placing’, -ra- ‘separation’, ‘removal’, -tata- ‘dispersal’, ‘motion in all directions’, -t hapi- ‘concentration’, -x. ata- ‘location on top’. These are illustrated in (154) on the basis of the root apa- ‘to carry’ (examples from England

67 Bertonio (1612a) records irusu- for ir-su-, and iruta- for ir-ta-. One may speculate that the initial vowel recorded in the suffixes -usu- and -uta- could provide an explanation for the vowel- suppressing behaviour of their present-day equivalents. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 279

1988: 122–3). The examples provide an impression of the unpredictable character of morphophonological vowel suppression.

(154) ap-kata- ‘to pick up and put at equal (higher) level’, ‘to transport’ apa-kipa- ‘to transport from one place to another’ ap-naqa- ‘to handle’, ‘to manipulate’ apa-nuku- ‘to abandon’ (also apa-muku-) ap-nuqa- ‘to place on the floor’ apa-ra- ‘to confiscate’, ‘to snatch away’ apa-tata- ‘to disperse’, ‘to bring into disorder’ ap-thapi- ‘to collect’, ‘to pick’ ap-x.ata- ‘to put on top’ The categories reflexive and reciprocal are both indicated by means of a suffix -si-, which can be combined with the causative -ya-. Normally,the order in which the causative precedes the reflexive-reciprocal suffix is the only one allowed in such combinations.

(155) isi- ‘to dress’ isi-nta-si- ‘to dress oneself elegantly’ isi-nta-ya- ‘to dress someone elegantly’ isi-nta-ya-si- ‘to have oneself dressed elegantly by someone else’ (B¨uttner and Condori 1984)

Some verbal roots, however, occur in a fixed combination with the suffix -si-. An example of such a root is unyi- ‘to hate’, ‘to abhor’, where -si-isobligatorily present but without conveying a clear reflexive or reciprocal meaning.68 In order to express causative and reflexive meaning the suffixes -ya- and -si- can be added to the verbal base unyi-si- in the prescribed order, in which case repetitions of -si- are allowed.

(156) unyi-si-ya- ‘to make (someone) hate (someone)’ unyi-si-ya-si- ‘to make oneself hated (by someone)’ unyi-si-si- ‘to hate each other’ (B¨uttner and Condori 1984)

The suffix -ya-exhibits the same wide range of applications as its counterpart -ciˇ -in Quechua, extending from causation to permission.69

68 Pacaraos Quechua has the expression uni-ku- ‘to hate’, obviously a case of borrowing from Aymaran. In this form, the Quechua reflexive suffix -ku- plays the part of its Aymaran counterpart -si-. It is a typical example of the sort of detailed correspondences that obtain between the two language groups. 69 The verb yati-ˇca- ‘to teach’, from yati- ‘to know’ (cf. also yati-qa- ‘to learn’), has a spe- cialised causative meaning. It stands in contrast with a regular and semantically less specific 280 3 The Inca Sphere

Aymara has a ventive (‘hither’) suffix -ni-, which combines the apparently com- plementary functions of ‘motion towards the speaker’ and ‘action performed in some other place’. These uses are strikingly parallel to those of -mu-inQuechua (cf. Cerr´on- Palomino 1994a: 119–20). A good illustration of the second, less common, use is (157), one of the examples in Bertonio (1603b), cited in Briggs (1993: 175). A modern version of (157) is reflected in the bracketed transcription, which includes the usual vowel- suppression rules.

(157) auqui-ha-na ut-pa-na manca-ni-tha {awki-ha-n(a) ut(a)-pa-n(a) manq’a-n(i)-tha} father-1P-G house-3P-L eat-H-1S ‘I went and had dinner at my father’s house’, ‘I am just coming back from having dinner at my father’s house.’

The Aymara ventive is frequently used in combination with a suffix -wa-or-waya- (∼-wa:-), which either indicates a separation, or an action performed in passing (158). The combination of -ni- and -waya- can express a circular motion, as in (159):

(158) iskwila-r sar-ka-sa-x. ihli:ˇsa-ru-w manta-way-ta {iskwila-r(u) sar(a)-ka-sa-x.(a) ihli:ˇsa-ru-w(a)70 manta-way(a)-ta} school-AL go-AN-SU-TO church-AL-AF enter-DT-1S ‘On my way to school I entered the church for a moment.’ (Cotari et al. 1978: Gram. 26) (159) uma-mp wayu-ni-waya-:ta {uma-mp(i) wayu-ni-waya:-ta} water-CO carry.with.handle-H-DT-2S.F ‘You will also bring water on your way back.’ (Briggs 1988: 208)

The effect of an event on a person who is not directly involved in the action can be defined either as positive (‘beneficiary’) or negative (‘detrimental’). These categories are marked by the suffixes -rapi- and -raqa-, respectively. The endings that otherwise encode the grammatical person of a direct or indirect object refer to a benefited or injured person in combination with these suffixes.

yati-ya- ‘to cause to know’, ‘to inform’. England (1988: 98, 114), interprets -caˇ -asaroot causative, whereas -ya-issaid to be flectional. The hypothesis is difficult to test, as there seem to be no cases of verbal derivational -caˇ - other than yati-ˇca-. The normal function of the suffix -caˇ -istocreate transitive verbs from nouns (see above). 70 The sound sˇ represents the sequence si(V) in a loan from Spanish (iglesia). 3.3 The Aymaran language family 281

(160) hiwasa-tak kamis ala-rap-istu-x.a {hiwasa-tak(i) kamis(a)-Ø ala-rap(i)-istu-x.a} we (incl.)-B shirt-Z buy-BN-3S.4O-TO ‘He has bought us a shirt.’ (Yapita 1991: 38) (161) naya-x. wawa-m sar-ta-ya-raq-sma {naya-x.(a) wawa-m(a)-Ø sar(a)-ta-ya-raq(a)-sma} I-TO child-2P-Z go-UW-CA-DM-1S.2O ‘I woke up your child (without you wanting it).’ (England 1988: 110)

The morphology of the Aymara verb includes two aspectual affixes. Their primary function is to indicate completion, -x. a-, and non-completion, -ka-; both trigger sup- pression of the preceding vowel. The use of these affixes is subject to interaction with the category of pluralisation and, in the case of the non-completive, with negation as well.71 When used by itself the non-completive suffix -ka- can be translated as ‘action to be carried out by anticipation’. However, the suffix -ka-ismost often found in neg- ative sentences, where its presence is required although it has no particular semantic contribution; see the examples (122) and (142) above. Another frequent use of -ka-is in the combination -s-ka-, where the first element is identified as a (meaningless) affix -si-, homophonous with the reflexive marker (England 1988: 111). The combination -s-ka- indicates progressive aspect; see example (135) above. That the initial element is to be identified with -si- becomes apparent when considering the plural form -si-p-ka-. Example (162) is from Sitajara (Tacna).

(162) marmi-kama-w ut-ha-si-p-k-tha uta-ŋa-n {marmi-kama-w(a) ut(a)-ha-si-p-k(a)-tha uta-ŋa-n(a)} woman-among-AF stay-LS-PR-PL-AN-1S house-1P-L ‘We are only women living in my house.’72 (Briggs 1993: 185)

The completive suffix -x. a- can be translated as ‘already’, ‘completely’, ‘for good’. Its presence, without any particular semantic contribution, is required after the pluraliser -p-,which never occurs by itself.

(163) marka-ma-n-x. hunt’u-ki-y haka-p-x.-paˇca:-ta-x.a {marka-ma-n(a)-x.(a) hunt’u-ki-y(a) haka-p-x.(a)-paˇca:-ta-x.a} town-2P-L-TO hot-DL-AT live-PL-CM-DU-2S-TO ‘In your country, where you (people) live, it will be hot, I suppose.’ (Yapita 1991: 57)

71 The status of the aspectual affixes and their interaction with pluralisation and negation is remi- niscent of the use of aspect in the Jun´ın and Pasco dialects of Quechua I (sections 3.2.3, 3.2.6). 72 The verb ut-ha- ‘to live’, ‘to exist’ is derived from a root uta- (cf. uta ‘house’) and a vowel suppressing suffix -ha-. A verb uta- with a similar meaning is found in Jaqaru (Belleza Castro 1995: 185). 282 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.8 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the unmarked tense (Yapita 1991)

1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) cur-taˇ ‘I give it (to him/her).’ 2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) cur-taˇ ‘You give it (to him/her).’ 3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) cur-iˇ ‘He/she gives it (to him/her).’ 4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) cur-tanˇ ‘We (incl.) give it (to him/her).’ 1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object cur-smaˇ ‘I give it to you.’ 2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object cur-istaˇ ‘You give it to me.’ 3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object cur-ituˇ ‘He/she gives it to me.’ 3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object cur-tamˇ ‘He/she gives it to you.’ 3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object cur-istuˇ ‘He/she gives it to us (incl.).’

Instead of -x. a-, the pluraliser can also be followed by -ka-, which in that case may retain any of its regular functions. Since the pluraliser -p-isalways followed by a vowel- suppressing suffix, it does not make sense to try and determine the nature of a possible vowel that would have been part of its form. However, there is some dialectal evidence that the full form of the pluraliser was -pa- (Briggs 1993: 184). Bertonio (1603b) mentions averbal pluraliser -pisca- (Briggs 1993: 184; Cerr´on-Palomino 1994a: 107), which is reminiscent of the numeral phisqa ‘five’. The relationship between this ancient plural marker and the contemporary forms is not clear. Personal reference marking and its interaction with tense and mood is one of the most complex areas of Aymara morphology. Unlike Quechua, there is only a very limited coincidence between verbal and nominal personal reference marking, although occa- sionally additional historical correspondences can be traced. The ‘transitional’ endings, which combine subject and object marking, are difficult to analyse. They may vary according to tense and mood. Constitutive elements of the transitional endings never become separated as in Quechua; they always occur as a block. Third-person objects are not marked. In table 3.8 the nine possible endings based on the four-person system introduced in section 3.3.3 are illustrated for La Paz Aymara with the unmarked tense paradigm of curaˇ - ‘to give’ (Yapita 1991: 34). Note that with the verb ‘to give’ the object encoded in the transitional endings refers to the recipient, not to the gift. As in Quechua, with verbs such as ‘to give’, an indirect, rather than a direct object, is en- coded, because the former is more likely to coincide with one of the participants in the speech act. As can be seen in table 3.8, the 1S and 2S endings are formally identical in La PazAymara, but most Aymara dialects do distinguish them by preserving the aspi- ration (-t ha)ofthe 1S form (cf. section 3.3.4). All consonant-initial endings trigger vowel suppression. For the behaviour of those endings that begin with a vowel i, see section 3.3.5 (137). 3.3 The Aymaran language family 283

The endings -tam and -tan are exceptions to the rule that Aymara words must end in avowel, at least underlyingly. It comes as no surprise that Bertonio and several present- day dialects have vowel-final forms (-tama,-tana) instead. Another ending subject to variation is -ista,which has been recorded as -itta in Bertonio and in the dialect of Sitajara, Tacna (Briggs 1993: 196). The elements -it(a)- and -ist(a)- appear to represent constant values for first-person and fourth-person object, respectively, throughout the Aymara verbal paradigm. The Aymara verb distinguishes two past tenses, both of which have been interpreted as ‘remote’. The difference between the two tenses is defined in terms of evidentiality (Hardman et al. 1988: 145–8). The so-called ‘near remote past’ (remoto cercano) refers to events of the speaker’s personal recollection (often including surprise), whereas the ‘far remote past’ (remoto lejano) refers to events that the speaker could not possibly have witnessed himself. According to Hardman et al. (1988), the remote past tenses of Aymara occur frequently in the third-person-subject form (without object or with third-person object), but much less often in any of the other persons or combinations of persons. This is corroborated by the fact that the non-3S forms exhibit considerable variation in form, both dialect-internally and cross-dialectally, a probable sign of insecurity on the part of the speakers. The formal aspects of the La Paz Aymara near-remote past-tense paradigm, as repre- sented in Yapita (1991), can be summarised as follows. A suffix -a:na is substituted for the vocalic ending of the 3S, 3S.1O, and 3S.4O forms of the unmarked tense (cura:naˇ , curita:naˇ and curista:naˇ , respectively). A vowel-preserving suffix -ya:- is inserted be- fore all the other endings of the unmarked tense (e.g. 1S and 2S curaya:taˇ , 1S.2O curaya:smaˇ ). A more extensive use of the suffix -(a):na (instead of -ya:-)isfound in Bertonio (1603b) and in the present-day dialect of Morocomarca (Bustillos, northern Potos´ı), where it occurs in all combinations except 1S, 2S and 2S.1O (Briggs 1993: 218). Inter- estingly, these varieties do not show a clear presence of the suffix -ya:-.Inthe 1S and 2S endings the markers -t ha and -ta are preceded by vowel length; the 2S.1O ending, rather unexpectedly, is -ita:ta.73 The La Paz Aymara paradigm of the far-remote past tense is characterised by a vowel- preserving ending -tayna in the third-person subject form; the 2S.1O, 3S.1O and 3S.4O endings -ista,-itu and -istu become reduplicated to -ista:sta,74 -itu:tu, and -istu:stu, respectively. All the other combinations insert a vowel-preserving suffix -ta:- (e.g. 1S and 2S curata:taˇ , 1S.2O curata:smaˇ ).

73 In these endings, the presence of vowel length is based on the Morocomarca forms, as Bertonio does not consistently indicate length. 74 Yapita (1991) gives -ita:sta instead of -ista:sta for far-remote 2S.1O, which is also the form recorded in Huancan´e (Puno, Per´u). 284 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.9 Subject and subject–object endings for the future tense in La Paz and Sitajara Aymara (Yapita 1991; Briggs 1993: 198)

La Paz Sitajara

1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -: -ŋa, -: 2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -:ta -ŋa:ta 3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -ni -ni 4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -nyani -nyani 1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -:ma -ma:(ma) 2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -ita:ta -itaŋa:ta 3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -itani -itani 3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -:tam -ŋata:ma 3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -istani -stani

The endings of the future tense are quite different from those of the unmarked and remote past tenses. In table 3.9 the endings of the future-tense paradigm are represented in two dialect forms: La Paz Aymara and the conservative Sitajara dialect of Tacna, Peru. All instances of vowel length in La Paz Aymara (length is represented segmentally) appear to reflect sequences that once contained a nasal, still present in Sitajara. The future-tense paradigm given by Bertonio (1603b) is similar to that of Sitajara with the difference that the velar nasal ŋ is replaced by j [h]. Instead of -nyani, Bertonio has -tana,aform still found in several of the southern and western Aymara dialects. It should be observed that the first-person future subject ending is etymologically identical to the first-person possessive ending, whereas the second-person possessive ending is etymologically identical to the second-person future object ending. The 1O and 4O endings can easily be segmented into elements -ita- and -(i)sta-, respectively, with the corresponding subject endings following them. As in Quechua, the Aymara imperative paradigm comprises a full set of endings en- coding all the options involving a second- or a third-person subject. Besides, future-tense forms can be used in a hortative sense, thus compensating for the absence of specific first- and fourth-person-subject endings. The imperative markers for second- and third-person subject, variably vowel-retaining -m(a) and vowel suppressing -p(h)a(na), are subject to some dialectal variation but are clearly reminiscent of the corresponding possessive markers. The combination 2S.1O has a special ending, -ita; the 3S.2O combination is indicated by a special ending -:tpa(n) or by the corresponding future-tense form (Briggs 1993: 200–4). The La Paz Aymara paradigm for second- and third-person-subject forms of curaˇ -isrepresented in table 3.10. Again like Quechua (cf. section 3.2.6), Aymara has a potential mood, which is divided into two tenses: present potential and past potential. These are referred to in Hardman 3.3 The Aymaran language family 285

Table 3.10 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the imperative mood (Yapita 1991)

2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) cura-mˇ ‘Give it to him/her!’ 3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) cur-paˇ ‘Let him/her give it to him/her!’ 2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object cur-itaˇ ‘Give it to me!’ 3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object cur-itpaˇ ‘Let him/her give it to me!’ 3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object cura-:tpa(n)ˇ ‘Let him/her give it to you!’ 3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object cur-istpaˇ ‘Let him/her give it to us (incl.)!’ et al. (1988) and in Briggs (1993) as the ‘desiderative tense’ (tiempo desiderativo) and the ‘reproacher tense’ (tiempo reprochador), respectively. The formation of the present potential is quite complicated. It appears to be the result of a merger of two earlier paradigms, which are still partly kept apart in Bertonio (cf. Briggs 1993: 205–10). One of these paradigms was characterised by the presence of an element -irik-or-irih-, the other one by the element -s(a)-. Some dialects have -irik-s-or-iri-s- (La Paz) rather than -irik-/-irih-. The personal endings of the -irik- paradigm coincide with those of the unmarked tense. This can be seen in Bertonio and in some of the modern dialects (e.g. Sitajara), where the -irik- paradigm has been preserved almost completely. The -s(a)- element is followed by specific personal endings: -ma for second-person subject, -p(h)a(na) for third-person subject (cf. the imperative paradigm), and -na for fourth-person subject. A first-person-subject form in -a (ending -sa) has been recorded in Ebbing (1965: 124) and Cerr´on-Palomino (1994a: 113), but most modern dialects now seem to prefer a form from the -irik- paradigm (-irista in La Paz Aymara). The endings which encode a first-person or a fourth-person object are formed by inserting the elements -ita- and -ista- before the -s(a)- affix. The second-person object is expressed by -irik- forms. The behaviour of -s(a)- in relation to the preceding vowel is that of a vowel-preserving affix, except in the sequence -sna (4S). The suffixes -sma (2S) and -spa (3S) are vowel- preserving even when following the object markers -ita- and -ista-. The fact that -sma (2S) does not suppress a preceding vowel helps to avoid confusion with the 1S.2O ending of the unmarked tense (cursmaˇ ‘I give it to you’, curasmaˇ ‘Youcould give it to him/her’). The paradigm of the past potential (or ‘reproacher tense’) is derived from the present potential paradigm. In all forms except first-person subject, the suffix -(a):na of the near-remote past tense is added to the corresponding present potential form.75 At the same time, the vowel of the suffix -s(a)- is recovered. In the 4S form one element -sa-is

75 Cerr´on-Palomino (1995a: 145) points at the similarity between the presence of the suffix -(a:)na, restricted to third-person subject in most of present-day Aymara, and the use of the third-person subject auxiliary verb kar(q)a in the past potential of Quechua. 286 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.11 Subject and subject–object endings for the present and past potential mood in La Paz Aymara (Yapita 1991)

Present potential Past potential

1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -irista -iriska:ta 2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -sma -sama:na 3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -spa -sapa:na 4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -sna -sa:na 1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -irisma -iriskasama:na 2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -itasma -itasama:na 3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -itaspa -itasapa:na 3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -iristam -iriskatama:na 3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -(i)staspa -(i)stasapa:na suppressed. In many dialects (including La Paz), the sequence -irik-or-iri-s- must be followed by an element -ka-inthe past potential. The present and past potential endings for La Paz Aymara are listed in table 3.11. Some examples are:

(164) kha: anu-w hala-ni, aˇc-ha-rak-sta-s-pa {kha(y)a anu-w(a) hala-ni-Ø, aˇc(u)-ha-rak(i)-(i)sta-s-pa} that dog-AF run-H-3S, hold.with.teeth-LS-AN-4O-PO-3S ‘That dog comes running, it may bite us!’ (Yapita 1991: 84) (165) ma: iki-ny apa-si-ni-ki-sa-m-a:na {ma(y)a iki-ny(a)-Ø apa-si-ni-ki-sa-m(a)-a:na} one sleep-FN-Z carry-RF-H-DL-PO-2S-PA ‘You just could have brought yourself a bed.’ (Yapita 1991: 52)

Two further distinctions that are expressed in the Aymara verbal system belong to the domain of evidentiality. A suffix -paˇca-, called ‘inferential’ (inferencial)inHardman et al. (1988), is used for referring to events of which knowledge is obtained by de- duction, rather than by observation; a suffix -ciˇ -, referred to as the ‘non-involver’ (no-involucrador), indicates conjecture.76 Both suffixes are vowel suppressing; -paˇca- can be inserted before the endings of the unmarked, the future and the near-remote tenses; -ˇci- can be combined with any tense of the indicative and optative moods (Hardman et al. 1988: 158, 165). After the suffixes -paˇca- and -ˇci-, the 3S ending of the unmarked tense consists in a zero marker. All other endings are those of the corresponding tenses and moods, allowing for occasional morphophonemic adjustments. The suffix -paˇca- retains

76 Cerr´on-Palomino (1994a: 114–15) points at the fact that this suffix could be historically related to the conjectural independent suffix -c.ˇi in Central Peruvian Quechua. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 287 its final vowel except before i;-ciˇ -isoptionally reduced to -s- before a vowel-suppressing consonant, while it becomes -ˇc- before i.77

(166) cur-paˇˇ ca-wa {cur(a)-paˇˇ ca-Ø-wa} give-IP-3S-AF ‘He/she must have given it.’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 149) (167) ina-s sar-ˇci {ina-s(a) sar(a)-ˇci-Ø} maybe-AD go-DU-3S ‘Maybe he went.’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 150) (168) ina-s khiti-rcur-s-ta ˇ {ina-s(a) khiti-r(u)cur(a)-ˇ ˇ c(i)-ta} maybe-AD who-AL give-DU-1S ‘Maybe I gave it to someone.’ (Yapita 1991: 35) (169) khiti-ru-wcur-paˇ ˇ ca:-ta {khiti-ru-w(a)cur(a)-paˇ ˇ ca:-ta} who-AL-AF give-IP-2S ‘I must have given it to someone.’ (Yapita 1991: 35)

Verbal subordination in adverbial clauses can be indicated by the vowel-preserving suffixes -sa and -sina. The descriptions vary as to the semantic distinction (if any) between these two suffixes, which would have to do with evidentiality (see, for instance, Briggs 1993: 286). The switch-reference dimension does not play a role, except in those dialects which preserve the subordinator -ipana,which indicates that the subjects of the subordinate and the superordinate verb are different. Originally, -ipana was the third- person form of a fuller paradigm including four subject distinctions (1S, 2S, 3S, 4S). According to Briggs (1993: 288), this paradigm, which is also mentioned in Bertonio, is in full use only in the Aymara dialect of northern Potos´ı (Morocomarca), where it has the following shape: 1S -inyana,2S-imana,3S-ipana,4S-isana. The varying central elements (-nya-,-ma-, -pa-, -sa-) coincide with the possessive personal endings of the nouns. The full subject paradigm of the switch-reference marker is also preserved in the related Jaqaru language, which may indicate that Proto-Aymaranhad an elaborate switch- reference system. In contrast to Quechua, Aymara subordinate verbs do not encode person of object.

77 Hardman et al. (1988) and Yapita (1991) often do not coincide in the notation of vowel length in the Aymara verbal paradigms. When referring to -paˇca-,Yapita always indicates length on the final vowel a,except before -ya:- of the near-remote past tense, e.g. 3S future tense -paˇca:ni in Yapita (1991: 34), but -paˇcani in Hardman et al. (1988: 165). 288 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.12 Nominalising affixes in Aymara

-iri ‘agentive’ -nya ‘infinitive’, ‘non-realised event’ -ta ‘stative’, ‘realised event’ -(:)wi ‘place or time’, ‘realised event’

The role of nominalisation in Aymara is similar to that in Quechua. The principal nominalising affixes in Aymara are shown in table 3.12. The -iri agentive is subject-centred and tenseless, as is its Quechua equivalent in -q. In (170) ik-k-ir-paˇc is a nominalised verb form used as a relative clause.

(170) waw ik-k-ir-paˇciˇc-su-ni-way-i {waw(a)-Ø ik(i)-k(a)-ir(i)-Ø-paˇc(a) iˇc(u)-su-ni-way(a)-i} child-Z sleep-IA-AG-Z-thus carry.a.child-OW-H-DT-3S ‘He went to pick up the child, asleep as she was.’ (Yapita 1991: 115)

Like in Quechua, the agentive can indicate the purpose of a motion verb, as in the following example from Sitajara:

(171) um way-t-iri-w sara-ŋ {um(a)-Ø way(u)-t(a)-iri-w(a) sara-ŋ(a)}78 water-Z carry.by.handle-UW-AG-AF go-1S.F ‘I shall go and fetch water.’ (Briggs 1993: 270)

The (vowel-preserving) nominalisation in -nya has a much wider use than the Quechua infinitive in -y, with which it otherwise shares many characteristics. It may refer to an event in abstracto without any restrictions of time, participant identity, etc. It can also express the complement of a modal verb, in which case its final vowel suffers zero complement suppression as any nominal direct object would.

(172) c’unˇ yu-ˇc-iri-r uny-ha-nymun-irista {c’unˇ yu-ˇc(a)-iri-r(u) uny(a)-ha-n y(a)-Ø mun(a)-irista} chu˜no-FA-AG-AL see-LS-IF-Z want-1S.PO ‘I should like to see the one who prepares chu˜no.’79 (Briggs 1988: 193)

78 The loss of the final vowel in sara-ŋa remains unexplained. 79 Frozen and soaked potatoes. The form c’unˇ yu-ˇc-iri-r can be replaced by its zero complement correspondent c’unˇ yu-ˇc-ir,inwhich case it refers to the process of chu˜no-making, rather than to the person who makes it. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 289

Nominalisation in -nya further covers the abstract functions of the future-instrumental nominalisation in -na which is found in Quechua.80 This includes the expression of future or desired events, the indication of purpose, which also requires the use of the benefactive case marker -taki, and the expression of obligation.

y (173) naya-x. hupa-n iskuyla-r sara-n a-p mun-ta {naya-x.(a) hupa-n(a) iskuyla-r(u) sara-nya-p(a)-Ø mun(a)-ta} I-TO he-G school-AL go-IF-3P-Z want-1S ‘I want him to go to school.’ (lit.: ‘I want his going to school.’) (Yapita 1991: 122) (174) yati-qa-nya-taki-w hut-ta81 {yati-qa-nya-taki-w(a) hut(a)-ta} know-DW-IF-B-AF come-1S ‘I have come to learn.’ (Briggs 1993: 279) (175) sara-nya-ha-wa go-IF-1P-AF ‘I must go.’ (lit.: ‘It is my obligation of going.’) (Yapita 1991: 72)

As an alternative to the construction with the possessive marker, exemplified in (175), it is also possible to reverbalise the infinitive by means of vowel lengthening. The person to whom the obligation applies is then expressed by the subject marker (176). Still another, more common, alternative involves the addition of the ownership suffix -ni to the infinitive before reverbalisation takes place (177).

y (176) naya-x. cura-nˇ a-:-t-wa {naya-x.(a)cura-n ˇ ya-:-t(a)-wa} I-TO give-IF-CV-1S-AF ‘I must give it to him/her.’ (Briggs 1993: 275) y (177) naya-x. apa-n a-ni-:-t-wa {naya-x.(a) apa-nya-ni-:-t(a)-wa} I-TO carry-IF-OS-CV-1S-AF ‘I must take it away.’ (Briggs 1988: 258)

Stative nominalisation is indicated by vowel-preserving -ta.Itisused for referring to any concrete entity affected or defined by a previous action. Both object-centred (transitive) and subject-centred (intransitive) examples are found.

80 The array of functions represented by -nya in Aymara is reminiscent of that of -na in Ecuadorian Quechua. 81 The verb huta- ‘to come’ is used without the ventive suffix -ni-inLaPaz Aymara. Bertonio (1612a, II: 169) observes that huta- has a limited morphological valence, but mentions the existence of huta-ni-tha ‘to come to where we are’. 290 3 The Inca Sphere

(178) phaya-ta-m naya-: manq’-t’a-si-: {phaya-ta-m(a)-Ø naya-ya manq’(a)-t’a-si-:} cook-SN-2P-Z I-AT eat-M-RF-1S.F ‘I shall eat what you have cooked.’ (Yapita 1993: 122) (179) manq’a-ta-:-ta-ti, hani-ˇca eat-SN-CV-2S-IR, not-IR ‘Have you eaten, or not? (Cotari et al. 1978, part I: 220)

Nominalisation in -(:)wi is used for referring to a realised event, or to the place, time or occasion of an event. It is often found in place names (Candaravi, Ilavi). Briggs (1993: 282) observes that the nominalising suffix -(:)wi is losing ground to -ta, particularly in its non-local functions. There is no particular rule predicting the presence of the long vowel; Briggs (1993) gives both -wi and -:wi as competing possibilities.

y (180) naya-x. hupa-n ut-ha-:wi-p un -h-t-wa {naya-x.(a) hupa-n(a) ut(a)-ha-:wi-p(a)-Ø uny(a)-h(a)-t(a)-wa} I-TO he-G stay-LS-LN-G-Z see-LS-1S-AF ‘I know the place where he lives.’ (Yapita 1991: 122) (181) sar-naqa-wi-ni-:-nya {sar(a)-naqa-wi-ni-:-nya} go-DD-LN-OS-CV-IF ‘to have culture’, ‘to have good behaviour’82 (Hardman et al. 1988: 267)

Aymara differs from Quechua in the inventory and behaviour of its independent suffixes. The evidentiality distinctions are expressed within the verbal paradigm, rather than by independent suffixes. The independent suffix -wa,which expresses affirmation or personal witness, is reminiscent of -mi in Quechua, but has no hearsay or conjectural counterparts. However, -wa does interact with distinctions that are expressed in the verb. It is not found with imperatives, nor does it co-occur with the non-involver forms in -ciˇ (see above). In sentences containing a non-involver form there is, however, the optional presence of an independent suffix -ciˇ , itself restricted to the sequences -ci-mˇ 83 or -ci-xˇ . a (Hardman et al. 1988: 287). As a matter of fact, the semantic value of non-involver -ciˇ (and, for that matter, the independent suffix -ciˇ )isnearly identical to that of the Quechua conjectural suffix -ˇc. i/-ˇca. Several independent suffixes, viz. -ki,-puni (∼ -pini) and -raki, can be inserted within the verb, as well as follow it. In fact, in Hardman et al. (1988), the term ‘independent suffixes’ (sufijos independientes)isreserved for this particular category, the remaining

82 Sar-naqa- (lit. ‘to walk back and forth’) conveys the meaning of ‘behaviour’, ‘lifestyle’, etc. 83 The suffix -m,ofhighly restricted use, is probably related to the Jaqaru hearsay marker -mna.A suffix -mna in Aymara was recorded by Bertonio (cf. Briggs 1993: 257). 3.3 The Aymaran language family 291 ones being termed ‘sentential suffixes’ (sufijos oracionales). The suffix -puni (∼ -pini), like its Quechua homonym, can be interpreted as ‘always’, ‘definitely’; the suffix -raki is translated as ‘even’, ‘more’, ‘else’, or ‘take care not to’. In (182) both -puni and -raki are followed by the vowel lengthening that indicates the notion of a copula ‘to be’:

(182) inklisa-st kunac’ama-puni-raki-:-spa-sti ˇ {inklisa-st(i) kunac’ama-puni-raki-:-spa-sti ˇ } English-IR what difficult-EM-AD-CV-3S.PO-IR ‘And English, how difficult exactly would it be?’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 284)

In (183) -raki precedes the person and tense ending:

(183) naya-x. aymar yati.ˇc-t’a-raki-:ma {naya-x.(a) aymar(a)-Ø yati.ˇc(a)-t’a-raki-:ma} I-TO Aymara-Z teach-M-AD-1S.2O.F ‘I shall also teach you Aymara.’ (Yapita 1991: 98)

The limitative suffix -ki, equivalent to Quechua -lya (‘just’, ‘only’), shares with the two preceding affixes the ability to occur inside verbalisations, or be inserted within a verb form; see example (165). Aymara is rich in independent suffixes with an interrogative function. The suffix -ti is used in negations, cf. (142), and in polar questions, cf. (179). It is the equivalent of Quechua -cuˇ .Ifthe question consists of several alternatives, the second and further alternatives are presented with -caˇ ; see again (179). The topic, and sometimes also the verb, in a pivotal question is marked with -sti; cf. (182). Interrogative expressions containing WH-question words are followed by -sa (cf. Quechua -taq); see (140) and (143) for examples. However, the same expressions, also with -sa, can be found in negative sentences, where they indicate absolute negation (cf. Quechua -pas,-pis,-si).

(184) hani-w makina-s kuna-s ut-ha-p-k-itu-ti {hani-w(a) makina-s(a) kuna-s(a) ut(a)-ha-p-k(a)-itu-ti} not-AF machine-AD what-AD exist-LS-PL-AN-3S.1O-NE ‘We have no machines, none whatever.’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 285)

The neutral function of -sa is to convey the meaning ‘too’, ‘also’. It is frequently found in enumerations. Aymara has several independent affixes that indicate emphasis, politeness or attenu- ation. The topic marker x. a is also used as an attenuator (Hardman et al. 1988: 280), for 292 3 The Inca Sphere instance, in a request for understanding on the part of the hearer. Its use is extremely frequent, and its presence is not always easily explained. The suffix -ya (usually -y or -:)isalso used for attenuation, for instance with imperatives with the meaning of ‘please!’. Complex sentences in Aymara are often constructed by juxtaposition of non- subordinate verbal clauses.84 The relation between the clauses can be made explicit by the presence of independent affixes, the form of the verb in the first clause, and by the presence of lexical elements. Yapita (1991) gives a number of interesting examples of such constructions, some of which are represented in (185)–(187). The equivalent of a relative clause can be constructed by means of a full verb containing the non- completive suffix -ka-, followed by a demonstrative pronoun uka ‘that’, which, in turn, is grammatically integrated into the main clause.85

(185) hupa qhuly-t-k-i uka yap sara-: {hupa qhuly(i)-t(a)-k(a)-i uka yap(u)-Ø sara-:} he plough-UW-AN-3S that field-Z go-1S.F ‘I shall go to the field that he has ploughed.’ (Yapita 1991: 123) (186) hupa ut-h-k-i uka uta-kama-w sara-nyani {hupa ut(a)-h(a)-k(a)-i uka uta-kama-w(a) sara-nyani} he stay-LS-AN-3S that house-LI-AF go-4S.F ‘We shall walk until the house where he lives.’ (Yapita 1991: 123)

The topic marker -x. a is used after verbs in the potential tense and in the unmarked non-involver tense to express a condition (‘if’).

y h (187) huta-n a-puni-:-ˇci-x.a, ina-s mariyanu-x. uta-r q aru:ru-x. hut-ˇci-ni {huta-nya-puni-:-ˇci-Ø-x.a, ina-s(a) mariyanu-x.(a) uta-r(u) qhar(a)-uru-x.(a) hut(a)-ˇci-ni} come-IF-EM-CV-DU-3S-TO maybe-AD Mariano-TO house-AL tomorrow-day-TO come-DU-3S.F ‘If it really should be urgent to come, Mariano may possibly come to the house tomorrow.’ (Yapita 1991: 123)

As in Quechua, direct speech plays a major role in Aymara discourse. Direct speech is obligatorily followed by a form of the verb ‘to say’ sa-, either in its subordinate form

84 Forafuller treatment of Aymara complex sentences see Dedenbach and Yapita (1994: 126–50). 85 The use of uka as a relativiser is reminiscent of similar uses of cay-qaˇ in Cuzco Quechua and hina in Puno Quechua. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 293 sa-sa (188) or in one of its finite forms (189). The construction sa-sa sa- is parallel in use and structure to Quechua IIC ni-spa ni-.

(188) hupa-x. apa-si-m sa-sa-w s-i {hupa-x.(a) apa-si-m(a) sa-sa-w(a) s(a)-i} he/she-TO carry-RF-2S.IM say-SU-AF say-3S ‘He/she said to me: Take it away!’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 314) y (189) kul aka-ha-x. huta-m s-itu-wa {kulyaka-ha-x.(a) huta-m(a) s(a)-itu-wa} sister-1P-TO come-2S.IM say-3S.1O-AF ‘My sister told me to come.’ (lit.: ‘My sister said to me: Come!’) (Yapita 1991: 98)

The verb sa- ‘to say’, the equivalent of Quechua ni-, is the only fully conjugated verb in Aymara that has a monosyllabic root.86 It is subject to the usual vowel-suppression rules, which in this case generate consonant clusters in root-initial position. Some dialects preserve these complex initials, but others (in particular, those of La Paz and Juli) tend to modify the root by adding a prefixed element hi-orsi-, whenever an initial consonant cluster obtains (e.g. hista, sista instead of sta ‘I/you say’); in Bertonio (1603b) the prefixed element is i-. The dialect of Jopoqueri (central Oruro, Bolivia) uses a root with a long vowel, sa:-, to avoid initial clusters. See Briggs (1993: 229–38) for a detailed discussion.

3.3.7 Aymara lexicon Many of the observations that were made with regard to the lexicon of present-day Quechua (cf. section 3.2.7) are valid for present-day Aymara as well. Although the sixteenth-century native lexicon has been preserved remarkably well, some of the most frequent items in present-day Aymara speech are of Spanish origin. These have been integrated so well that most speakers will not immediately recognise them as borrowed words. For instance, the word parla- ‘to speak’ was probably derived from an archaic or regional (Catalan?) Romance term, which is not in use in present-day standard Spanish. The word for ‘good’, wali,was probably derived from the Spanish expression vale ‘it is OK’, ‘it holds’. The phonotactic rules of Aymara tend to change the shape of borrowed words considerably (e.g. hawasa ‘beans’ from Spanish habas). The remark that the number of lexical roots, especially verbs, is limited also holds for Aymara. However, the derivational morphology of Aymara is considerably richer still than that of Quechua, in particular, in the domain of spatial categories. Dictionaries contain long lists of verb roots with derivational extensions that have acquired idiomatic

86 The cognate root of sa-inJaqaru, saha-, consists of two syllables. 294 3 The Inca Sphere meanings. The availability of several verbalisation devices, which interact with nom- inalisation processes and which sometimes can be used recursively, further stimulates the formation of idiomatic expressions. Even to a greater extent than Quechua, Aymara is exceptionally rich in lexical terms referring to ways of carrying (cf. Tate 1981). The overall term for ‘to carry’ is apa-, as in Quechua, but a number of other terms, exclusively Aymara in their majority, occur as well.

(190) aˇcu- ‘to carry with the teeth’ asa- ‘to carry open recipients’ (plates, vessels) aya- ‘to carry something long’ (sticks, pencils) haˇc’i- ‘to carry a handful’ (grain, rice) harphi-, t’imphi- ‘to carry in apron or skirt’ iˇcu- ‘to carry in the arms’ (children, small animals) iqa- ‘to carry something flexible’ (cloth, rope) ira- ‘to carry objects that fit in the hand’ (bread, fruit, money) itu- ‘to carry something big with both hands’ (stone, cooking-pot) kalya- ‘to carry a large object, alone or with others’ (trees, tables) h p ux.tu- ‘to carry with two hands’, ‘to carry a double handful’ (also in Quechua) q’ipi- ‘to carry on the back’ (also in Quechua) wayu- ‘to carry with a handle’ (baskets, buckets, suitcases)

Kinship terminology in present-day Aymara is rather similar to European kinship terminology (cf. Pyle 1981). It distinguishes gender of referent, rather than gender of ego. Unlike the case of Quechua, the terms for ‘son’, yuqa, and ‘daughter’, phuˇca, are kept apart. In the terms for ‘brother’ and ‘sister’, respectively, hila(ta) and kulyaka, gender of ego is no longer indicated. However, Bertonio’s dictionary (1612a) gives evidence of a more complex system, in which not only gender of ego, but also relative age play a role. For instance, alu (Bertonio alo)is‘younger brother of woman’, cinkiˇ (Bertonio chinqui)is‘younger sister’, whereas kulyaka (Bertonio collaca)istranslated as ‘elder sister’. ‘Elder brother’ and ‘younger brother’ are listed as hila and sulyka (Bertonio sullca), respectively. Affinal kinship terms are well elaborated in present-day Aymara: tulyqa ‘son-in-law’, yux. c’aˇ ‘daughter-in-law’, lari ‘relative of wife’. Parents-in-law are indicated by means of a vowel-suppressing suffix -ˇc’i as in awk-ˇc’i ‘father-in-law’ (from awki ‘father’) and tayk-ˇc’i ‘mother-in-law’ (from tayka ‘mother’). The Aymara numeral system is decimal and parallel to that of Quechua in the way complex numerals are formed; see above (150) and (151). From an etymological point of view, however, the Aymara facts seem to betray a less elaborate system. The words maya ‘one’, paya ‘two’ and pusi ‘four’ are exclusive to the Aymaran languages. A term 3.3 The Aymaran language family 295 for ‘two human beings’ or ‘both’ is pa(:)ni. The words for ‘seven’ paqal yqu, and ‘eight’ kimsaqal yqu, contain the elements for ‘two’ pa(ya) and ‘three’ kimsa, respectively, which leaves the element qal yqu as the possible remnant of an old word for ‘five’. The words for ‘three’ kimsa, ‘five’ phisqa, ‘six’ sux. ta, ‘ten’ tunka, ‘hundred’ pataka and ‘thousand’ waranqa, are shared with Quechua. Although the direction of borrowing is not traceable in all cases, the added vowel in the word for ‘hundred’ (Quechua paˇc. ak) suggests a Quechua origin.87 The word for ‘nine’ l ya(:)tunka can be interpreted as a reflex of *l yal ya tunka ‘almost ten’; llalla tunca is the form listed in Bertonio (1612a). The spatial deictic elements exhibit a fourfold distinction based on distance from the speaker. The proximate term is aka ‘this’, the non-proximate term is uka ‘that’; for further distance k haya ∼ k ha: and k h uyu ∼ k huri can be used, the latter indicating a greater distance than the former. Substantive-like use of the demonstratives can be brought about by consecutive verbalisation and nominalisation as in ak-i:ri ‘the one here’, ‘this one here’. Local deictics are case-marked; e.g. aka-na ‘here’. Further combinations are possible with the vowel-suppressing affixes -ha ‘size’ and -hama ‘like’ (e.g. ak ha ‘this much’, ak hama ‘like this’). Temporal deixis consists of special elements that are obligatory in temporal expres- sions, such as hiˇcha ‘now’, which appears in hiˇchu:ru ‘today’, hiˇchayp’u ‘tonight’ (uru ‘day’, hayp’u ‘evening’), and qhara ‘tomorrow’, which is more often found as qharu:ru. Some of these elements do not occur alone; cf. masu:ru ‘yesterday’ and walu:ru ‘day before yesterday’. Of the interrogative roots kama and kuna (meaning ‘what?’), the former is restricted to derivations such as kam-sa- ‘to say what?’, kama-ˇca- ‘to do/happen what?’ and kamisa ‘how?’, whereas the latter occurs alone or in temporal expressions, such as kuna paˇca ‘when?’. Further interrogatives are khiti ‘who?’, kawki ‘what place?’ and q(h)awqha ‘how much?’, ‘how many?’. Several forms for ‘which?’ are derived from kawki by consecutive verbalisation and nominalisation: kawki(:)ri, kawkni(:)ri. The latter form appears to be derived from kawki-na ‘where?’ rather than from kawki itself (Briggs 1993: 93). Aymara has root names for the colours: ‘black’ cˇ’iyara,‘white’ hanq’u,‘grey’ c’ikˇ (h)u, cˇ’ix. i, ‘red to brown’ cupikaˇ , wila,88 ‘coffee brown’ c’umpˇ (h)i,‘yellow’ q’ilyu (cf. Quechua), ‘light blue’ sahuna, ‘dark blue’ larama, and ‘green’ c’uxˇ . nya. As in Quechua, root reduplication plays a role in Aymara as well. Most frequent is the reduplication of substantives in order to indicate a dispersed quantity, e.g. in qala=qala

87 The interpretation of the direction of borrowing is dictated by the fact that Aymara has no nominal stems ending in a consonant, whereas conversely Quechua has many nominal stems ending in a vowel. There is no reason why Quechua should lose such a vowel in the process of borrowing. 88 The status of wila as an exclusive colour term cannot be upheld, because it also refers to ‘blood’. In the related Jaqaru language ‘blood’ is the sole meaning of wila (Belleza Castro 1995: 196). 296 3 The Inca Sphere

‘stony place’ (from qala ‘stone’). The existence of reduplicated elements which together constitute a single root was already observed by Bertonio (1612a), as appears from his commentary on the gloss of the word huarahuara [warawara] ‘’ (author’stranslation): ‘And it is not a repeated noun, such as calacala [qalaqala], which means “stony place” or “heap of stones”, but it is a single noun. Maya huarahuara, one star.’

3.3.8 Literary production in Aymara In the colonial period Aymara played a more modest role than Quechua, and only very few texts have been preserved. Some remnants of the pre-Columbian oral tradition in the form of song texts are found in the chronicle of Guaman Poma de Ayala (1615); see section 3.3.1. As a lengua general, the Aymara language formed part of the Doctrina Christiana programme of 1584 (see section 3.2.2). Bertonio (1612b), assisted by his Aymara consultant Don Mart´ın de Santacruz, published a Libro de la vida y milagros de Nuestro Se˜nor Iesu Cristo en dos lenguas, aymara y romance (Book of the Life and Miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Two Languages, Aymara and Spanish). A specimen of this text in a modernised version can be found in the anthology of Aymara literature published by Alb´o and Layme (1992), which furthermore contains several good examples of traditional narratives, myths, etc., along with political discourse and historical accounts. As in the case of Quechua, most of contemporary Aymara literature is traditional, and consists of myths, rituals, narratives, autobiographical accounts, song texts and riddles. Several texts were recorded in the 1940s in Chucuito by the anthropologist Tschopik (1948). One of the texts he collected was the autobiographical account of an Aymara woman, named Manuela Ari, which was eventually published by Briggs and Dedenbach (1995). It illustrates social injustice and the hardships of life on the altiplano.Acollection of stories entitled Jichha na: parlt’a (Now I Am Going to Tell), told by Elvira Espejo Ayka (1994), an eleven-year-old girl from Qaqachaka (province of Avaroa, Oruro), was published by Arnold and Yapita. Finally, we should mention the production of the Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue (Experimental Project for Bilingual Education), which operated in Puno during the 1980s. This programme has generated several publications, among them, collections of myths and folktale Winay ˜ (Eternal Time) I and II (L´opez and Sayritupac 1985, 1990), and a compilation of song texts Qala Chuyma (Heart of Stone) (Paniagua Loza 1986).

3.3.9 Aymara sample text The following sample text is an excerpt from a narrative relating the sufferings of the altiplano Indians during the Chaco War (1932–5), between Bolivia and Paraguay. The account, narrated by Esteban Yapu Mamani from La Paz, was first published in the 3.3 The Aymaran language family 297 trilingual magazine Jayma (Community Field) in La Paz (1984–6) and, subsequently, reprinted in Alb´o and Layme (1992: 120–4). The original orthography has been adapted to the transcription used in the present work.

1. walic’umi-raki-:n-wa. ˇ {walic’umi-raki-:n(a)-wa ˇ } very forested-AD-3S.NR-AF ‘It was all covered with bushes there.’

The original transcription of sentence 1 has a short vowel in the verb form. Since the other instances of the near-remote past ending -:na do contain an indication of vowel length, we treat this as an oversight and restore the long vowel mark.

y h 2. uma-t-x. sint-pin wan -kata-p-x.-ita-:n-x.a, uk ama-rak manq’a-t-x. awt-ha-p-x.-ita-:n-x.a. {uma-t(a)-x.(a) sint(i)-pin(i) wany(a)-kata-p-x.(a)-ita-:n(a)-x.a, uk(a)- hama-rak(i) manq’a-t(a)-x.(a) awt(i)-ha-p-x.(a)-ita-:n(a)-x.a} water-AB-TO strongly-EM dry-PT-MA-CM-3S.1O-NR-TO, that-CP-AD food-AB-TO hunger-LS-PL-CM-3S.1O-NR-TO ‘The lack of water made us terribly thirsty, and, likewise, the lack of food made us suffer from hunger.’

The expressions uma and manq’a followed by the ablative case ending -t(a) must be translated with the expression ‘for lack of’ (cf. Quechua mikuy-manta ‘for lack of food’). The verbs wany-kata- ‘to become dry’ and awt-ha- ‘to be hungry’ are used with an impersonal third-person subject. Both show idiomatic use of derivational affixes.

y h 3. na-naka-x. c’axˇ .wa-n hak’a-n-ka-p-x.a-ya-t-wa, uka-t-x. q ux.uq-ir-x. is.t’-x.a-p-x.a-rak-t-wa. {na-naka-x.(a)c’ax ˇ .wa-ny(a) hak’a-n(a)-ka-p-x.a-ya-t(a)-wa, uka-t(a)-x.(a) qhux.uq(i)-ir(i)-x.(a) is(a).t’(a)-x.a-p-x.a-rak(i)-t(a)-wa} I-PL-TO fight-IF nearby-L-LV-PL-CM-NR-1S-AF that-AB-TO thunder-AG-Z-TO hear-CM-PL-CM-AD-1S-AF ‘We were close to where the fighting was, so we could even hear the explosions.’

The near-remote suffix -ya:- does not contain a vowel-length marker in hak’a-n-ka- p-x. a-ya-t-wa. This may be a consequence of the foreshortening effect produced by the first-person subject marker -t(a).However, most sources do write vowel length in such cases (see, in particular, Yapita 1991). The verb is.t’a- ‘to hear’ is derived from a root *isa-, which is not found without a derivational affix. 298 3 The Inca Sphere

y 4. uka-t nayra-qatc’ax ˇ .w-ir sultaru-w un -s-ta-ni-p-x.-itu, q’ala thantha-w puri-ni-:na. {uka-t(a) nayra-qat(a)c’ax ˇ .w(a)-ir(i) sultaru-w(a) uny(a)-s(i)-ta-ni-p -x.(a)-itu, q’ala thantha- w(a) puri-ni-:na} that-AB first-LS fight-AG soldier-AF see-RF-UW-H-P-CM-3S.1O, totally ragged-AF arrive-H-3S.NR ‘Then, soldiers who had been fighting earlier appeared before us, they arrived totally in rags.’

The suffix -qata is restricted to the word nayra-qata ‘first’, ‘before’ exemplified here (Briggs 1988: 200). The meaning of nayra is ‘eye’, ‘first’ or ‘ancient’. One could consider the possibility that -ta in -qata was originally the ablative case marker (‘from’, ‘after’). The verb uny-s-ta- ‘to appear before someone’ is here used transitively. It contains the reflexive suffix -si-, which preserves a preceding vowel except in this particular case. There is an alternative form unya-si- without vowel suppression, which has the same meaning.

y 5. na-naka-r un -ha-sa-x. haˇca-raki-:n-wa. {na-naka-r(u) uny(a)-ha-sa-x.(a) haˇca-raki-:n(a)-wa} I-PL-AL see-LS-SU-TO cry-AD-3S.NR-AF ‘They even cried when they saw us.’

Note that the allative case, rather than the zero marker, is used with human complements.

6. uka-t-x. sa-p-x.a-rak-itu-wa, kuna-ti pas-ka-:n uk-x.a. {uka-t(a)-x.(a) sa-p-x.a-rak(i)-itu-wa, kuna-ti pas(a)-ka-:n(a) uk(a)-x.a} that-AB-TO say-PL-CM-AD-3S.1O-AF what-IR happen-AN-3S.1O that-Z-TO ‘Then, they told us more about what was happening over there.’

The word kuna-ti ‘what + interrogative suffix’ is used here as a connective element introducing a complement clause. The clause is closed by uka,which summarises the complement clause and identifies it as the direct object of the main clause (by zero mark- ing). The verb pasa- ‘to happen’ is from Spanish pasar. Note the use of the incompletive marker -ka-, which indicates an anticipated event.

h 7. t’aq i-si-ta-naka-p-s awis-t’a-p-x.a-rak-ita-:n-wa. {t’aqhi-si-ta-naka-p(a)-s(a) awis(a)-t’a-p-x.a-raki-ta-:n(a)-wa} suffering-RF-SN-PL-3P-Z-AD inform-M-PL-CM-AD-3S.1O-3S.NR-AF ‘And they also informed us about how they had suffered.’ The verb awisa- ‘to inform’ is from Spanish avisar. The element -t’a- adds politeness. When used as a verb, t’aqhi-si- ‘to suffer’ obligatorily contains the reflexive suffix -si-. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 299

In sentences 4 to 7 we have followed the source edition, which speaks of the arrival of several soldiers from the front. However, the use of the plural markers in this passage does not preclude the alternative interpretation that only one soldier arrived. Plural markers can apply to the object (if not third-person), as well as to the subject, and the text excerpt presented here does not contain cases of verbal plural marking in which the object (‘us’) is not encoded (cf. England 1988: 112).

y 8. caku-n-xˇ . wali uma-t hiwa-n a-:n-wa. {caku-n(a)-xˇ .(a) wali uma-t(a) hiwa-nya-(:-)-:n(a)-wa} Chaco-L-TO a.lot water-AB die-IF-CV-3S.NR-AF ‘In the Chaco one had to die for lack of water.’ Sentence 8 contains a reverbalised infinitive, which indicates obligation. The required vowel length is not discernible, because the following near-remote marker -:na also begins with a long vowel. See also sentence 10.

h h 9. cˇ ux.-sa hani-w ina-kc ˇ ux.u-rpaya-p-ka-:n-ti, ma:.ki-w uma-nt-x.a-p-x.a-:n-x.a. {cˇhux.(u)-sa hani-w(a) ina-k(i)c ˇhux.u-rpaya-p-ka-:n(a)-ti, ma(y)a.ki-w(a) uma-nt(a)-x.a-p-x.a-:n(a)-x.a} urine-Z-AD not-AF in.vain-DL urinate-LB-PL-PR-AN-3S.NR-NE at.once-AF drink-IW-CM-PL-CM-3S.NR-TO ‘Even urine they would not throw away just like that, they would drink it on the spot.’ The suffix -rpaya- has been described as a marker of ‘multiple action’, ‘reversed action’, as well as an intensifier (England 1988: 107; Briggs 1993: 168). In sentence 9 it seems to coincide with the meaning of Quechua -rpari-inverbs of abandonment (‘to dispose of and leave behind’). The common expression ma:ki ‘at once’ is derivable from ma(y)a ‘one’ and the delimitative suffix -ki ‘just’. Note the double occurrence of the completive marker -x. a in the verb uma-nt-x. a-p-x. a-:n(a). This is a common phenomenon due to the fact that the second occurrence of the suffix is part of the plural marking, whereas the first instance indicates completive aspect (‘eventually’, ‘in the end’). See also the sentences 11, 13 and 15, and England (1988: 112).

10. uka-t-sti, pastu-s manq’a-nya-ki-:-n-wa. {uka-t(a)-sti, pastu-s(a) manq’a-nya-ki-(:-):n(a)-wa} that-AB-CT grass-AD eat-IF-DL-CV-3S.NR-AF ‘But then, it was also necessary to eat grass.’ h h 11. kuriya-naka, t ant a sapatu-nak-s manq’-x.a-p-x.a-ki-ya-t-wa. {kuriya-naka, thantha sapatu-nak(a)-s(a) manq’(a)-x.a-p-x.a-ki-ya-t(a)-wa} belt-PL ragged shoe-PL-Z-AD eat-CM-PL-CM-DL-NR-1S-AF ‘We ended up eating belts and old shoes.’ 300 3 The Inca Sphere

The word kuriya-naka lacks both zero complement marking and the additive suffix -sa,which would mark its coordination with t hant ha sapatu-nak-s.Apossible association with pastu-s in sentence 10 would also require the presence of the additive suffix. Here we interpret the forms kuriya-naka and t hant ha sapatu-nak-s as coordinated objects on the basis of the Spanish translation accompanying the text. In the original text, a long vowel is written in the element -ki-oftheverb manq’-x. a- p-x. a-ki-ya-t-wa. Since there seems to be no motivation for a long vowel, we have left it out. For the shortness of the vowel in -ya:- see the commentary on sentence 3.

h h 12. um t aqa-sa-x. luq i-w tuk-x.a-p-x.a-:n-x.a. {um(a) thaq(h)a-sa-x.(a) luqhi-w(a) tuk(u)-x.a-p-x.a-:n(a)-x.a} water-Z search-SU-TO mad-AF become-CM-PL-CM-3S.TO ‘Searching for water, people eventually went mad.’ h h 13. um t aq a-sa-x. uraq p’iya-p-x.a-:n-x.a, hani-pini-w uma-x. ut-h-iri-:-k-i-ti. {um(a) thaq(h)a-sa-x.(a) uraq(i) p’iya-p-x.a-:n(a)-x.a, hani-pini-w(a) uma-x.(a) ut(a)-h(a)-iri-:-k(a)-i-ti} water-Z search-SU-TO earth dig-PL-CM-3S.NR-TO, not-EM-AF water-TO exist-LS-AG-CV-AN-3S-NE ‘Searching for water, they dug into the earth, but there was never any water to be found.’

The reverbalised agentive form in the verb form ut-h-iri-:-k-i-ti indicates a habit- ual past. A third-person-subject habitual past without reverbalisation is illustrated in sentence 14.

h h 14. uma-layk uraq p’iya-s ma.nta-sa-x. haqi-mp-paˇca-ki-wc ˇ aq -x.-iri. {uma-layk(u) uraq(i) p’iya-s(a) ma.nta-sa-x.(a) haqi-mp(i)-paˇca-ki-w(a) cˇhaqh(a)-x.(a)-iri} water-cause earth dig-SU enter-SU-TO man-CO-IN-DL-AF get.lost-CM-AG ‘Digging into the earth for the sake of water and entering the pits, it even happened that men disappeared.’

The verb manta- ‘to enter’ contains a non-productive root ma- ‘to go’ (Jaqaru maha-), which is obligatorily accompanied by a derivational suffix (here -nta- ‘in- ward motion’). The common combination -mp(i)-paˇca-isdiscussed by Briggs (1988: 208). It indicates inclusion and consists of the coordinative marker -mpi (Quechua -wan) and the inclusive marker -paˇca (Quechua -nti-), which indicates total inclusion. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 301

The suffix -paˇca also conveys the meanings ‘(it)self’ and ‘inferential knowledge’ (see above).

y 15. ma: hila.ta-x. pitrulyu un -ha-raki-tayna, uk uma-sa-s hiw-x.a-p-x.a-raki-:n-wa. {ma(y)a hila.ta-x.(a) pitrulyu uny(a)-ha-raki-tayna, uk(a) uma-sa-s(a) hiw(a)-x.a-p-x.a-raki-:n(a)-wa} one brother petrol see-LS-AD-3S.FR, that-Z drink-SU-AD die-CM-PL-CM-AD-3S.NR-AF ‘They say one of our comrades even found petrol, and then he drank it and died.’

The word hilata ‘brother’ may have been derived from hila- ‘to grow’; an alternative term for brother is hila (originally ‘elder brother’). There is no ready explanation for the absence of zero complement marking in petrulyu; possibly the fact that the (underlying) vowels on both sides of the word boundary were identical may have caused confusion.

3.3.10 The Jaqaru language89 As we noted in passing, the sound system of the Jaqaru language is highly complex. The vowel system is similar to that of Aymara and Central Peruvian Quechua. It com- prises three vowels (a, i, u) with additional distinctive length. As in the neighbouring languages, the high vowels are subject to obligatory lowering in a uvular environment. Non-obligatory lowering is found in other environments. The status of length has been a matter of debate. Although it has been general practice to classify the vowels as plain (short) versus long, Hardman (1983a, b) proposes a distinction between plain (short) and extra-short vowels. In this approach, the plain vowels correspond to the longer option in pairs differentiated by length, whereas extra-short vowels (a,˘ ˘ı,u ˘) represent the shorter option in such pairs. Cerr´on-Palomino (1994b) criticises this analysis on empirical and general linguistic grounds. He prefers to treat the shorter vowels as plain and the longer ones as long in pairs differentiated by length. Even though Hardman’s approach may seem unusual from a general linguistic point of view, it should be observed that if in a minimal pair differentiated by length one of the elements is a lexical item shared with Quechua, it often, though not always, has the longer vowel option. Compare in (191) Quechua cakiˇ ‘(to) dry’, and in (192) Quechua kaka ‘maternal uncle’.90

89 The main sources of the grammatical information given in this paragraph are Hardman (1966), Hardman (1983a) and Belleza Castro (1995). It should be noted, however, that our analysis of the Jaqaru data may differ from the one given in these sources. 90 Our own observation of Jaqaru speech indicates that the vowels can be pronounced long, even when they are not part of a minimal pair differentiated by length (e.g. nar-ma [na:rma] ‘laugh!’, ut-ma [o:tma] ‘your house’). The matter requires further investigation. 302 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.13 Jaqaru consonant inventory

Alveolar Labial affricates Alveolar Alveopalatal Palatal Retroflex Velar Uvular

Plain p c t ty cˇˇ c. kq Obstruents Glottalised p’ c’ t’ ty’ˇc’c ˇ.’k’q’ Aspirated ph ch th tyh cˇh cˇ.h kh qh Fricatives ssh ˇ Nasals m n ny ŋ Laterals l ly Vibrant r Glides w y

(191) c˘ˇak-k-icak-k-i ˇ (Hardman 1983a, b) {c˘ˇak(i)-k-i}{cak(i)-k-iˇ } cak-k-iˇ ca:k-k-i ˇ (Cerr´on-Palomino 1994b) {cak(i)-k-iˇ }{ca:k(i)-k-iˇ } look.for-SM-3S dry-SM-3S ‘He is looking for it.’ ‘It is drying.’ (192) k˘aka kaka (Hardman 1983a, b) kaka ka:ka (Cerr´on-Palomino 1994b) ‘uncle’ ‘wing’

The Jaqaru consonant inventory (cf. also section 3.3.3) is shown in table 3.13.91 Although all these consonants are attested, some exhibit a low frequency of occur- rence. Of the alveolar affricates only the glottalised affricate is found in word-initial position (e.g. c’irara ‘black’; Aymara: cˇ’iyara). The aspirated affricate cˇh is limited to word-internal position (in iˇchu ‘straw’; Aymara: hiˇchu). For the limited distribution of the velar nasal see section 3.3.3. Initial liquids and r in Aymara cognates and Quechua loans are usually matched by a nasal in Jaqaru; for instance, in nyaki ‘sadness’ (Quechua l yaki), nuri ‘inside’ (Quechua I ruri) and nura- ‘to do’ (Aymara lura-, Quechua I rura-).92 Vowel suppression is common in Jaqaru. Both morphophonemic and syntactically based rules are represented (cf. sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5). Interestingly, vowel suppression

91 Hardman (1983a) and Belleza Castro (1995) use different spellings for the alveolar affricate series (respectively, tz and ts, etc.), for the alveopalatal series (tx and ty, etc.) and for the retroflex series (cx and tr, etc.). Both authors use spellings for the palatal series (ch, etc.), as well as for the (alveo)palatal nasal, lateral and fricative (n˜, ll, sh) and the velar fricative (j). The velar nasal is written nh. Aspiration is written “ by Hardman and h by Belleza Castro. 92 Surprisingly, Jaqaru also has a number of words with initial l and ly, such as lyuqalya ‘boy’, possibly a loan from Aymara or from an extinct Aymaran language. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 303 can also affect vowels inside a root or ending, in contrast to Aymara, where this is exceptional. Furthermore, non-contiguous, as well as contiguous affixes can exert an influence upon the shape of a morpheme (Hardman 1966: 32–9; 1983a: 55–72). Vowel suppression in Jaqaru is dominated by a bewildering variety of ad hoc rules, which are much more difficult to formulate in general terms than in the case of Aymara. In the following example the word for ‘fox’ atuqu is subject to root-internal vowel suppression, whereas kuntiri ‘condor’ has root-final vowel suppression (but compare kuntri-wˇsqa in example (198) below).

(193) amur aruma atqu-qa sa-k-i kuntir-ha {amur(u) aruma at(u)qu-qa sa-k-i93 kuntir(i)-ha} well night fox-TO say-SM-3S condor-AC ‘At midnight the fox says to the condor:...’ (Farf´an 1952: 80)

The way in which vowel suppression takes place, as well as its occurrence or non- occurrence, can lead to differences in interpretation of the resulting forms. In (194) the first-person possessive suffix and the first-person-subject future marker (both -ŋa)donot exert the same influence on the preceding root (Hardman 1966: 33; 1983a: 56). In (195) the absence of vowel suppression before the possessive marker -ŋa indicates object function (zero complement) under specific conditions. The suffix -ŋa itself must be followed by a word-boundary, and the preceding substantive base can only be extended by a limited number of affixes (Hardman 1966: 89; 1983a:148). For the possessive markers see section 3.3.4.

(194) iŋac-ŋaiŋca-ŋa {iŋac(a)-ŋa}{iŋ(a)ca-ŋa} serf-1P hire.a.serf-1S.F ‘my serf’ ‘I will hire a serf.’ (195) tat-ŋa tata-ŋa {tat(a)-ŋa}{tata-ŋa} father-1P father.Z-1P ‘my father (subject)’ ‘my father (object)’

Some of the Jaqaru case markers are identical to those of Aymara, namely, -hama ‘comparative’, -kama ‘limitative’, -na ‘locative-genitive’, -ru ‘allative’, -taki ‘benefac- tive’ and -t ha ‘ablative’. The accusative case can remain unmarked, or it can be indicated by a functional absence of vowel suppression (195) or by a special (vowel suppressing) marker -ha (193)(196). The latter can be reduced to an aspiration and indicates object

93 The full form of the verb ‘to say’ is saha but the root in inflected forms is sa-. 304 3 The Inca Sphere or goal of motion in emphatic use. Obviously, additional research is needed to obtain a full understanding of accusative marking in Jaqaru.

(196) khuly-ha want-ˇs-i-s-na uht-qh-tna {khuly(u)-ha want(a)-(i)ˇs(i)-i-s(a)-na94 uht(a)-qh(a)-t(a)na} log-AC carry.on.the.shoulder-RF-SU-4S-SU come-RP-4S ‘Carrying a tree trunk we come back.’ (Hardman 1966: 93)

The instrumental-coordinative case is indicated by two different markers, -(w)ˇsqa and -mina. The former indicates association with the subject, whereas the latter is used for association with the object. The longer form -wˇsqa is attached to roots, whereas -sqaˇ is found after other suffixes.

(197) hayt’-w-utu mam-ˇca-ŋ-mina-wa {hayt’(a)-w-utu mam(a)-ˇca-ŋ(a)-mina-wa} leave-PV-3S.1O mother-DL-1P-IS-AF ‘He left me alone with my mother.’ (Hardman 1966: 93) (198) miˇs-uru atuqu tiŋku-w-i kuntri-wˇsqa95 {miˇs-uru atuqu tiŋku-w-i kunt(i)ri-wˇsqa} one-day fox meet-PV-3S condor-IS ‘One day fox met condor.’ (Farf´an 1952: 79)

In addition to the regular case markers, Jaqaru uses a number of spatial nouns, which form a compound with the substantive root to which they are attached. These spatial nouns can, but need not, be followed by a case marker.

(199) uˇc.uŋs-nuri-t-qa hanwa-w-i {uˇc.uŋs(a)-nuri-t(ha)-qa han(a)wa-w-i} hole-inside-AB-TO appear-PV-3S ‘It appeared from inside a hole.’ (Hardman 1966: 86)

As in Aymara, the Jaqaru verb has a considerable number of derivational affixes referring to space, direction or manner. They normally suppress a preceding vowel.96 Some of them, such as -kata-‘extending action, motion across’, -kipa- ‘turning mo- tion’, -suˇ - ‘outward motion’, ‘completion’ and -t’a- ‘at once’ have cognate equivalents in Aymara. Others, such as -kusu- ‘as one goes’, -qhasa- ‘holding, maintaining’ and

94 Instead of wanta-, Belleza Castro’s dictionary (1995) lists wantu-; cf. Quechua wantu- ‘to carry on a litter’. 95 Since the distinction between the velar and alveolar nasals is contrastive in Jaqaru, we use the symbol ŋ for any constant velar nasal, even in environments where assimilation plays a role. 96 The only exceptions are the suffixes that begin with a sequence -rC-. 3.3 The Aymaran language family 305

-qhul yu- ‘beginning’ are particular to Jaqaru. The four main directions are indicated by the affixes -uru- ‘inward motion’, -suˇ - ‘outward motion’, -pta- ‘upward motion’ and -naca- ‘downward motion’.

(200) hayr-kus-k-i-wa {hayr(a)-kus(u)-k-i-wa} dance-as.he.goes-SM-3S-AF ‘He dances as he goes (while going).’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 95) (201) ir-qhas-k-i-wa {ir(a)-qhas(a)-k-i-wa} carry-holding-SM-3S-AF ‘He is holding it.’ (Hardman 1966: 51) (202) kuntiri-qa97 say-pta-w-ata {kuntiri-qa say(a)-pta-w-ata} condor-TO stand-UW-PV-RM.HS.3S ‘The condor got on his feet.’ (Farf´an 1952: 81)

The valency-changing suffixes -iˇsi- ‘reflexive, reciprocal’ and -ya- ‘causative’98 are cognate with their Aymara equivalents. Remarkable is the absence in Jaqaru of a ventive (‘hither’) marker, considering its omnipresent and obligatory character in Aymara and in the surrounding Quechuan dialects.99 Plural marking is optional and emphatic. It can be indicated by the suffix -rqaya- and may refer either to the subject, or to the object.

(203) nura-rqay-ma {nura-rqay(a)-ma} work-PL-2S.IM ‘Work (you folks)!’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 158) (204) hayˇc-kha-rqay-sa-ŋa-na {hayˇc(a)-kha-rqay(a)-sa-ŋa-(a)na} beat-M-PL-PO-1S-PA ‘I could have killed them.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 158)

97 Hardman (1966: 105, 1983a: 170) explains that the behaviour as to vowel suppression of an element preceding the suffixes -qa and -wa is determined by the characteristics of the element itself; compare the effect of -qa in example (193). Clearly,more information is needed concerning the apparently unpredictable behaviour of nominal roots before these suffixes. The absence of vowel suppression in (202) may possibly also be attributed to Farf´an’sunsystematic orthography. 98 The dictionary of Belleza Castro (1995) contains several cases of causative derivation in -aya- with suppression of the preceding root-final vowel if it is not -a-.Insome cases, forms in -ya- and in -aya- coexist, e.g. naki-ya- ‘to make (it) burn’, but nak´a-y-k-iri ‘arsonist’. 99 Cerr´on-Palomino (2000) notes the use of a marker -ni- (as in Aymara) in combination with the future tense in Jaqaru. This coincides with our own preliminary observations. 306 3 The Inca Sphere

The formation of the indicative mood in Jaqaru involves the use of the affixes -k- and -w-,which respectively indicate simultaneousness and previousness.100 Both markers suppress a preceding vowel except for -w-when it is itself followed by a consonant. The use of these affixes is interrelated with that of a marker -qh(a)- referring to repetition or restitution. The latter can either precede the simultaneous event affix or follow the previous event affix. In combination with a verb not otherwise marked for tense, subordi- nation or nominalisation, the presence of -k-isinterpreted as present tense, whereas -w- refers to past tense. There is also the option of an unmarked form which neither contains -k- nor -w-.Itisnot very frequent, except in verbalised expressions and in verbs with the repetition marker -qh(a)-; cf. Hardman (1983a: 91) and example (196) above. The ‘transitional’ verbal endings that indicate person of subject and object in Jaqaru are formally related to their Aymara counterparts, but they present an additional option. The ending -uˇsta is reserved for a subject in the second person acting upon an object in the fourth person ‘you–us’. (Conversely, 4S.2O does not exist.) One might expect this 2S.4O combination to be logically excluded given the fact that the fourth person has been interpreted as the of the first and second persons (cf. section 3.3.4). In a discussion of the personal reference systems of the Aymaran languages, Hardman (1975: 448) contrasts this characteristic Jaqaru combination with the situation in Aymara, where her consultants considered it a ‘semantic impossibility.’101 The ending -uˇsta is related to Aymara -ista,which is used to indicate the transition 2S.1O (‘you–me’). The latter combination is expressed in Jaqaru by means of an ending -uta, possibly a cognate of -ita of the Aymara imperative paradigm. Also worth mentioning is the ending -ima,which indicates a first-person subject and a second-person object (Aymara -sma). The Jaqaru non-future indicative personal reference paradigm is represented in table 3.14. In addition to the unmarked tense just introduced, Jaqaru has two remote tenses, a near-remote past and a far-remote past. The distinction between the two is again reflected by the presence of the markers -k- (in the near remote) and -w- (in the far remote). If the subject is third person and there is no morphologically encoded object, the ending can either be -ana or -ata. The latter is used for information from hearsay and in combinations with the repetitive marker -q h (a)- (only allowed after -w-). If the subject is either not third person, or it is part of an explicit subject–object transition, the endings in table 3.14 are used with the following additions. An element -Vh- with a harmonically variable vowel is inserted after the markers -k- or -w-, and before the personal endings. This element is obligatory if the personal ending begins with a consonant (1S, 2S, 4S and 3S.2O), and optional if it begins with a vowel (1S.2O, 2S.1O, 2S.4O, 3S.1O, 3S.4O). In contrast, the

100 The common denominations for these two markers are ‘present’ and ‘past’ (Hardman 1966, 1983a; Belleza Castro 1995). These denominations do not seem adequate because both markers can occur in other temporal contexts as well. 101 Speakers of Cauqui do accept the combination, but a formal difference between 2S.4O and 2S.1O is maintained only in the future tense (Hardman 1975). 3.3 The Aymaran language family 307

Table 3.14 Subject and subject–object endings of the unmarked tense in Jaqaru (Hardman 1966, 1983a)

1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -tha 2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -ta 3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -i 4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -tana 1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -ima 2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -uta 2 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -uˇsta 3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -utu 3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -tama 3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -uˇstu

latter five personal endings must be followed by the suffix -ana,which retains its initial vowel before a pause but loses it when followed by other suffixes. Retention of the initial vowelof-ana means that the final vowel of the personal endings is suppressed, thus eliminating the contrast between second- and third-person subjects in the transitions at issue.102

(205) ily-w-ih-ima-n-wa {ily(a)-w-ih-ima-(a)n(a)-wa} see-PV-RM-1S.2O-RM-AF ‘I remember that I looked after you.’103 (Hardman 1983a: 97) (206) iˇsa-w ily-kh-k-ah-tam-tyi {iˇsa-w(a) ily(a)-kh(a)-k-ah-tam(a)-tyi} not-AF see-suddenly-SM-RM-3S.2O-NE ‘He/she had not seen you.’ (Hardman 1983a: 97)

As in Aymara and Quechua, the future tense has special endings which cannot be pre- dicted from their non-future counterparts. When contrasting it with the Sitajara paradigm presented in section 3.3.6 (table 3.9), one observes that the future paradigm in Jaqaru has m where conservative Aymara has ŋ,except for the first-person marker, which is -ŋa in both languages. The non-transitional subject endings for first, third and fourth persons cannot be analysed any further. The fourth-person ending is furthermore identical with its non-future counterpart. As for the other endings, some generalisations can be made.

102 This unusually complicated piece of grammatical description is based on Hardman (1983a: 96–9), which differs substantially from the earlier Hardman (1966: 57–9). 103 According to Hardman, the element -Vh- adds the notion of personal remembrance in those cases where its presence is optional. 308 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.15 Subject and subject–object endings of the future tense in Jaqaru (Hardman 1966, 1983a)

1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -ŋa 2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -mata 3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -ni 4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -tana 1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -mama 2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -utumata 2 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -uˇstumata 3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -utuni 3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -matama 3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -uˇstuni

Third-person subject endings that do not involve a second-person object are formed by adding the 3S future ending -ni to the corresponding non-future endings. The non-transitional second-person subject ending and the transitional endings involving a second-person object are characterised by the insertion of an element -ma- before the corresponding non-future ending (with loss of -i- in the case of 1S.2O -ima > -mama). Finally, the transitional endings involving a second-person subject are formed by adding the non-transitional second-person ending -mata to the corresponding non-future end- ings in which the final -a- is replaced by -u-. It should be observed that the longer future endings are subject to all sorts of vowel suppression, so that they rarely, if ever, occur in their full form. For instance, suffix-initial -u- is only preserved after the suffix -k h(a)- ‘suddenly’, otherwise -stumataˇ ,-stuniˇ , -tumata and -tuni are found (with suppression of the preceding vowel). The fourth- person ending is -tna before a pause, but -tan-or-tana- elsewhere. The first-person suffix -ŋa preserves the preceding vowel, possibly as a disambiguating device vis-`a-vis the possessive ending; cf. example (194). It retains its own vowel only before a pause. The third-person ending -ni always retains its full shape, preserves the preceding vowel before a pause, but eliminates it elsewhere.

(207) ily-ˇstuni-wa {ily(a)-(u)ˇstuni-wa} see-3S.4O.F-AF ‘He will see us.’ (Hardman 1983a: 101) (208) aru-ni ar-ni-wa {aru-ni}{ar(u)-ni-wa} call-3S.F call-3S.F-AF ‘He will call him.’ ‘He will definitely call him.’ (Hardman 1983a: 100) 3.3 The Aymaran language family 309

The imperative paradigm presents the complication of having distinct forms for use in negative and affirmative constructions whenever the ending involves a second-person subject. In a negative construction the endings of the non-future indicative are used:

(209) han hayt’-ta-tyi {han(i) hayt’(a)-ta-tyi} don’t leave-2S-NE ‘Don’t leave him!’ (Hardman 1983a: 103)

The affirmative imperative ending for (non-transitional) second-person subject is -ma. It suppresses the preceding vowel before a pause, but preserves it, losing at the same time its own vowel, before other affixes. The other 2S endings can be derived from the future endings by eliminating final -ta. The 3S endings in -ni can be derived from their future counterparts by replacing -ni with the (vowel-suppressing) ending -pha; 3S-2O has the same ending as its future equivalent (-matama). The 4S ending -tana is kept apart from its non-imperative counterparts by preserving a preceding vowel. All trisyllabic endings lose their middle vowel (-matma,-utma, -uˇstpha, etc.) before a pause, but an initial vowel u is generally preserved.

(210) pur-ˇsu-q ily-uˇstma {pur(i)-(u)ˇsu-q(a) ily(a)-uˇstma} arrive-SU.SS-TO see-2S.4O.IM ‘Come and see us when you arrive!’ (Hardman 1983a: 104)

The Jaqaru potential is based on the equivalent of the Aymara-sa- paradigm; cf. section 3.3.6. (table 3.11). The non-transitional subject endings are -sa (1S), -sama (2S), -spha (3S) and -sana (4S). The transitional forms involving a second-person subject can be derived from the future forms by substituting -sama for -mata. The transitional forms that involve a third-person subject ending -ni in the future tense can be derived from the latter by substituting -spha for -ni. Interestingly, the combinations 1S.2O and 3S.2O have unanalysable endings: -stamaˇ and -masama, respectively. Preceding vowels are preserved before -spha, -sama and -sana but suppressed before the other endings. The past tense of the potential (cf. Aymara) can be derived from it by adding -(a)na in combination with a few formal adjustments. The subject endings of this paradigm are -saŋa-na (1S), -sama-na (2S), -sapa-na (3S) and -sana (4S), the last one being identical to the non-past form. In both potential paradigms suffix-initial -u- is seldom effectively present.104

104 Hardman (1983a: 106) observes that this has only been found to be the case after the root atyama- ‘to warn’, which is then reduced to atym- (e.g. atym-uˇstusama-na ‘you should have warned us’). 310 3 The Inca Sphere

Jaqaru has a well-developed system of verbal subordinate markers involving switch- reference. The switch-reference system comprises a derived subject (‘same subject’) subordination marker -uˇsu,aswell as a full set of markers referring to specific persons and combinations of persons that can be used to indicate a different subject in the subordinate verb with respect to the superordinate verb. Object marking is possible but not obligatory. The combination of a third-person subject and a second-person object (3S.2O) lacks a specific morphological expression. The subordinate forms with subject marking are formed according to a pattern -i-P- na,inwhich P represents the nominal possessive marker, except that the third-person morpheme -pa occurs without aspiration. (This pattern coincides in principle with the Morocomarca Aymara paradigm discussed in section 3.3.6.) First- and fourth-person objects can be indicated by substituting -utu- and -uˇstu-, respectively, for the element -i-. The 1S.2O transition is indicated by the ending -imamana. All subordination endings are subject to different types of vowel suppression, in particular those affecting their initial vowel. Switch-reference is clearly relevant when the third-person subject ending -i-pa-na is contrasted with the same subject form in -uˇsu.Itisthe situation where the switch- reference mechanism attains its maximum functionality in a discourse. However, if the verbs in the construction share a non-third-person subject, both subordinate forms, either with or without person-of-subject marking, can be used. The use of the derived subject marker with referentially identical third-person subjects is exemplified in (211). For a case of its use with second persons see (210) above. Example (212) shows that, when the subjects are identical but not third person, explicit subject marking in the subordinate verb is also possible.

(211) athataˇsk-uˇsu im-iri ma-k-i {athataˇsk(a)-uˇsu im(a)-iri ma-k-i} seed receive-SU.SS sow-AG go-SM-3S ‘After receiving the seed, he goes sowing.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 169) (212) misa-s(a) iˇsp-i-s-na uht-qha-tn(a) ak-ha {misa-s(a) iˇs(a)p(a)-i-s(a)-na uht(a)-qha-t(a)n(a) ak(a)-ha} Mass-4P hear-SU.4S.SU come-RP-4S here-AC ‘After hearing our Mass, we came back here.’ (Hardman 1983a: 120)

The Jaqaru subordination markers can be combined with the marker -k-toindicate simultaneousness (213). The element -k-ata- indicates simultaneousness in a remote unwitnessed past (214). 3.3 The Aymaran language family 311

(213) hayr-k-i-ŋa-n-qa {hayr(a)-k-i-ŋa-n(a)-qa} dance-SM-SU-1S-SU-TO ‘while I am dancing...’ (Belleza Castro 1995:129) (214) uk-nur-n(a) hayr-k-ata-p-na nak-ˇsu-w-ata {uk(a)-nur(i)-n(a) hayr(a)-k-ata-(i)-p(a)-na nak(i)-ˇsu-w-ata} that-inside-L dance-SM-RM-SU-3P-SU burn- OW-PV-3S.RM.HS ‘He burned them all, while they were dancing inside.’ (Hardman 1983a: 122)

In Jaqaru it is possible to express an infinitive-like nominalisation function of the verb by using its root without any specific ending. The verbs ma- ‘to go’ and sa- ‘to say’ have extended forms (maha, saha) for this function.

(215) kumpari, na-ps hum-hama-w hac mun-k-tha {kumpari, na-ps(a) hum(a)-hama-w(a) hac(a) mun(a)-k-tha} compadre I-AD you-CP-AF sing.N want-SM-1S ‘Compadre,105 I also want to sing like you.’ (Hardman 1966: 116)

As in Aymara, the agentive nominaliser ends in -iri.Asinthe case of the third-person subject marker -i, the final vowel of the morpheme preceding the affix is lost. (Compare Aymara where in such a case u is retained, but other vowels are lost.)106 In its main function of indicating a subject-centred deverbal noun, the agentive marker is preceded by the marker of simultaneousness -k- when referring to a specific activity that is taking place or has taken place. If the event is either non-specific, or still to occur, -k- is absent.

(216) niwni-k-ir-mna ily-utu {niwni-k-ir(i)-mna ily(a)-utu} steal-SM-AG-HS see-3S.1O ‘They say they saw me stealing.’ (Hardman 1966: 78) (217) niwn-iri haqi {niwn(i)-iri haqi} steal-AG person ‘a thievish person’, ‘a thief’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 122)

The marker of stative nominalisation is -ta,asinAymara (218). When explicitly referring to present tense or to an event simultaneous with the action denoted by the

105 Compadre (Spanish): the godfather of one’s child. 106 The verbs ma- ‘to go’ and sa- ‘to say’ either form their agentives on the basis of the extended root (mah-iri, sah-iri), or two special forms, ma-li and sa-li, are used. 312 3 The Inca Sphere main verb, the sequence -k-ata is used instead. It can be analysed as containing the marker -k- of simultaneousness followed by an element -(a)ta,which is probably identical with -ta (219).

(218) ima-ta sow-SN ‘what has been sown’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 70) (219) miˇsi-w-k-ata-p-thawal-naqa-ya-rqay-k-i {miˇsi-w-k-ata-p(ha)-thawal(a)-naqa-ya-rqay(a)-k-i} cat-CV-SM-SN-3P-AB run-DD-CA-PL-PR-3S ‘Because he is a cat, they persecute him.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 90)

For non-realised events the nominaliser -nuˇsu is used. Purposive clauses are indicated byacombination of -nuˇs(u) and -taki (‘benefactive case’).

(220) pal-nuˇsu {pal(u)-nuˇsu} eat-FN ‘something to eat’, ‘food’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 131) (221) pal-nuˇs-p-taki {pal(u)-nuˇs(u)-p(ha)-taki} eat-FN-3P-B ‘in order for him to eat’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 124)

Copula verbalisation in Jaqaru is realised by means of a segmental suffix -w(a)- (cf. Hardman 1983a: 177–9). This suffix always has the shape -w- except before certain suffixes that require a preceding vowel (for instance, third-person subject future-tense -ni). An illustration has been given in (219). Example (222) contains a sequence of the verbaliser -w(a)- and the marker of previousness -w-; (223) illustrates the use of the copula verbaliser with a noun marked for instrumental case.

(222) amru-(w-)w-ata {am(u)ru-w(a)-w-ata} good-CV-PV-3S.RM.HS ‘It turned out to have been good.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 187) (223) ipi-m-ˇsqa-w-k-ta {ipi-m(a)-(w)ˇsqa-w(a)-k-ta} paternal.aunt-2P-IS-CV-SM-2S ‘You are with your paternal aunt.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 187) 3.3 The Aymaran language family 313

Belleza Castro reports the existence, as in Aymara, of a verbaliser -ka- used after the truncated form of the locative case marker -n(a) in order to indicate location:

(224) punu-n-ka-ni-wa107 {punu-n(a)-ka-ni-wa} Puno-L-LV-3S.F-AF ‘He will be in Puno.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 122)

Negation in Jaqaru is indicated in a way similar to that in Aymara, with the differ- ence that there are three negative adverbs, instead of one. The most common negative adverb iˇsa is found in declarative sentences (206) and in combinations with adjectives (iˇsa amuru ‘not good’, iˇsa hiw-iri ‘immortal’). The element hani (cf. the Aymara gen- eral negation marker hani)isreserved for prohibitive expressions (209). Full negative sentences furthermore must contain the independent suffix -tyi (cf. Aymara -ti), which is also used to mark polar questions. Subordinate clauses take the negation marker matyi. The notion ‘without’ can be indicated morphologically with nouns by means of the suffix -wiˇsi and with subordinate same-subject verbs by means of the suffix -maya.

(225) kasra-w-tha matyi tat-p-psa mun-k-utu-p-na {kas(a)ra-w-tha matyi tat(a)-p(ha)-psa mun(a)-k-utu-p(a)-na} marry-PV-1S not father-3P-AD want-SM-1O-3S-SU ‘I married her although her father did not want me.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 107) (226) pal-maya ma-w-qh-i {pal(u)-maya ma-w-qh(a)-i} eat-NE.SU go-PV-RP-3S ‘He left without eating.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 108)

Jaqaru has a rich array of independent affixes. The affixes -qa ‘topic marker’, -tyi ‘interrogative-negative’ and -wa ‘affirmative’ are similar in use to the cognate affixes in Aymara (see the preceding pages for examples). The interrogative marker -sa is used with interrogative pronouns to emphasise that they are used as interrogatives. This is also one of the functions of -sa in Aymara. Note that all aspirated consonants preceding

107 The verbaliser -ka- should be kept apart from the marker of simultaneousness -k-. When combined, both are realised as -k- (as a result of vowel suppression) so that only one suffix may appear to be present, e.g. ika-n-(k-)k-tha ‘I am in Ica’ (example from Belleza Castro 1995: 122). 314 3 The Inca Sphere

-sa become unaspirated, even when separated from -sa by another morpheme (Hardman 1966: 99).

(227) kawki-ta-w-ta-sa {kawki-t(h)a-w(a)-ta-sa} what.place-AB-CV-2S-IR ‘Where are you from?’ (Hardman 1966: 98)

The additive suffix -psa is reminiscent of Quechua -pas.Italso has similar functions. Along with its usual meaning ‘also’, ‘too’, it is used with interrogative roots to indicate indefiniteness.

(228) qaˇci-psa who-AD ‘whoever’, ‘anyone’ (Belleza Castro 195: 135) (229) qaˇci-psa hal-ur-p-tyi {qaˇci-psa hal(a)-ur(u)-p(ha)-tyi} who-AD fall-IW-3S.IM-NE ‘Let no one enter!’ (Belleza Castro 195: 135)

Other independent suffixes are -aˇsi ‘maybe’, -ha ‘of course!’, ‘now I see!’, -il yi ‘emphatic’, -iˇsi ‘I remember’, -kasa ‘already’, -kha ‘furthermore’, -mna ‘they say’, -ra ‘still’, and -sk ha ‘once again’. The suffixes -aˇsi and -iˇsi are only found after other independent suffixes (which then lose their final vowel). The suffix -k ha is frequently found after -r(a)- (230).

(230) mam-ŋa sa-w-utu-r-kha-wa “iqu, hani ma-ta-tyikhuw-ha” {mam(a)-ŋa sa-w-utu-r(a)-kha-wa “Iqu, hani ma-ta-tyikhuw(a)-ha”} mother-1P say-PV-3S.1O-AN-AD-AF girl, don’t go-2S-NE that.place-AC ‘My mother said to me furthermore: “Girl, don’t go there!” ’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 158)

The Jaqaru lexicon has undergone a considerable influx of Quechua loans, most of which are from the central Peruvian dialects. An example of Quechua influence are the numerals. In accordance with the rules of Aymaran word structure, the Jaqaru numerals for ‘seven’, ‘eight’ and ‘nine’ present an added final vowel, which is not found in Quechua and which betrays the latter as the lending language.

(231) qanˇc.isi ‘seven’ Central Peruvian Quechua: qanˇc.is pusaqa ‘eight’ Quechua: pusaq isqu˜na ‘nine’ Quechua: isqun 3.3 The Aymaran language family 315

The other Jaqaru numerals are either cognate to the Aymara ones (maya ‘one’, paha ‘two’, puˇsi ‘four’), or shared with both Aymara and Quechua (kimsa ‘three’, piˇcqa ‘five’, suhta ‘six’, c.ˇuŋka ‘ten’, paˇc. aka ‘hundred’, waraŋqa ‘thousand’). Units are added to tens with the possession marker -ni,asinAymara; e.g. c.ˇuŋk-maya-ni ‘eleven’ (< 10 + 1). Complex numbers are subject to different sorts of internal vowel suppression. An interesting phenomenon is the presence of remnants of sound-symbolism, which is also visible in Quechua loans. In the word tyahˇsa ‘small’ (from Central Peruvian Quechua takˇsa) and in utyutyulyqu ‘goblin’ (compare Central Peruvian Quechua uˇcuk ulyqu ‘little man’) the palatal character of the alveopalatal stop appears to indicate small- ness, as is also the case in other sorts of palatality in the neighbouring Quechua dialects (cf. section 3.2.5). In addition to basic vocabulary shared with other Aymaran languages, there are also a substantial number of words which are exclusive to Jaqaru (and possibly Cauqui). Examples are karma(ha) ‘man’ (Aymara caˇˇ ca), uhara ‘maize’ (Aymara tunqu), wasa- ‘to go’ (Aymara sara-), ilya- ‘to see’ (Aymara unya-), palu- ‘to eat’ (Aymara manq’a-), and many others. The interrogative pronouns in Jaqaru present considerable differences vis-`a-vis their Aymara counterparts, as in qaˇci ‘who’ (Aymara khiti), quwa ∼ qusa ‘what’ (Aymara kuna), qaˇcwira ‘which’ (Aymara kawk(n)i:ri), alongside similarities, as in qamiˇsa ‘how’ (Aymara kamisa).

3.3.11 Jaqaru sample text The following animal story was collected by J. M. B. Farf´an in the late 1940s from a storyteller called Vicente Casanova (Farf´an 1952: 80–1). It is entitled ‘The guinea-pig and the fox.’ Farf´an collected Jaqaru narratives long before the first modern study of the language appeared. Like most early observers of the Jaqaru language, he did not succeed in rendering the complex sounds of the language consistently. In what follows, we shall try and supply a modernised version which follows the original text as faithfully as possible.

1. miˇs-uru-wa tiŋku-w-i atuqu k’uytyu-wˇsqa may qa:q-na {miˇs-uru-wa tiŋku-w-i atuqu k’uytyu-wˇsqa may(a) qa:q(a)-na} one-day-AF meet-PV-3S fox guinea.pig-IS one rocky.peak-L ‘One day a fox and a guinea-pig met on a rocky peak.’

The element miˇs-isacombinatorial variant of maya ‘one’ which is used in a compound with uru ‘day’; when preceding a noun as a modifier, maya is realised as may by vowel suppression. The long vowel in qa:qa (from Quechua qaqa)isour rendering of a long vowelinBelleza Castro (1995) and a plain vowel in Hardman (1983a); the last vowel of 316 3 The Inca Sphere qa:qa is lost before the locative marker (-na)infinal position. The root tiŋku-isaloan from Quechua.

2. atqu-wa katu-w-i k’uyty-ha sa:ma-tha pal-nuˇs-p-taki {at(u)qu-wa katu-w-i k’uyty(u)-ha sa:ma-tha pal(u)-nuˇs(u)-p(ha)-taki} fox-AF catch-PV-3S guinea.pig-AC back-AB eat-FN-3P-B ‘The fox caught the guinea-pig by the back in order to eat him.’

Concerning pal-nuˇs-p-taki:any suffix loses its vowel and aspiration before -taki; -nuˇsu loses its final vowel before the person marker -pha; root-final vowels are lost before -nuˇsu.

3. k’uytyu-qa sa-w-i atuq-ha “hani hayˇc-kh-uta-tyi {k’uytyu-qa sa-w-i atuq(u)-ha hani hayˇc(a)-kh(a)-uta-tyi} guinea.pig-TO say-PV-3S fox-AC don’t beat-M-2S.1O-NE ‘The guinea-pig said to the fox: “Don’t kill me!”’

The combination hayˇc-kh(a)- (lit. ‘to beat suddenly’) has the meaning ‘to kill’. Farf´an uses the form atuxa,which we have interpreted as atuq-ha; the accusative marker -ha merges with the last consonant in the root after suppression of the latter’s final vowel, resulting into an aspirated -qh-.

4. pan-sa hira aqhi-ru {pan(i)-sa hira aqhi-ru} two.people-4P let’s.go cave-AL ‘“Let us go the two of us to a cave!’

The form pani is a special form for ‘two people’, from paha ‘two’ and possibly the possession marker -ni;itloses its final vowel before the person marker -sa. The form hira functions syntactically as a verb form, hence the complement in -ru.

5. khuwa-n-k-i-wa yaŋ-ŋayak-nuˇsu-ŋ-taki k’uytyu ANTCHAQAXA” {khuwa-n(a)-k(a)-i-wa yaŋ(a)-ŋa yak(a)-nuˇsu-ŋ(a)-taki k’uytyu } that.place-L-LV-3S-AF companion-1P give-FN-1P-B guinea.pig very more. robust-AC ‘There are my companion(s), so that I can give you a more robust guinea-pig.”’

Our subdivision of this sentence differs from that in Farf´an, who has a comma after khuwa-n-k-i-wa;itseemed more logical to connect this form with yaŋ-ŋa, than with the 3.3 The Aymaran language family 317 word referring to the cave. As we have seen, the element -k- can either be interpreted as a locative verbaliser -k(a)-,asamarker of simultaneousness -k-,orasasequence of both; here we have opted for the first solution. The nominaliser -nuˇsu retains its final vowel before the first person possessive marker -ŋa. The form transcribed as antchaqaxa and translated as ‘m´as fuerte’ (‘more robust’) by Farf´an could not be analysed. It may either contain the elements anca ‘much’ and -ˇc. aqa ‘more’, or the word anˇc. aˇc. i ∼ anˇc. haˇc. hi ‘(too) many’, followed by the accusative marker -ha (as suggested by Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication). In either case the quantifier would have been extracted from the noun phrase.

6. atqu-qa anc’-ˇsu-w-i k’uyty-ha katu-t-hairp-nuˇs-p-taki qunca-p-n uk-ha {at(u)qu-qa anc’(a)-ˇsu-w-i k’uyty(u)-ha katu-t(a)-ha irp(a)-nuˇs(u)- p(ha)-taki qunca-p(ha)-n(a) uk(a)-ha} fox-TO let.go-OW-PV-3S guinea.pig-AC seize-SN-AC lead-FN-3P-B brother.of.male-3P-G there-AC ‘The fox set free the guinea-pig that had been captive, so that he might lead him to the place where his brothers were.’

The form katu-t-ha is here interpreted as accusative, but an ablative interpretation (katu-t-tha ‘from a captive state’) would also make sense. The genitive–locative marker -na in final position suppresses the vowel and the aspiration of the possessive third person marker -pha;thevowelof-na itself is suppressed by the initial vowel of the root uka that follows it; the combination -n(a) uka refers to ‘the place of’; uka with a short (or extra-short) vowel refers to a place (‘there’).

y 7. u:ka-t-qa k’uyt u-qa hal-ru-w-i uˇc.uŋsa-ru haypta-w-i {u:ka-t(ha)-qa k’uytyu-qa hal(a)-(u)ru-w-i uˇc.uŋsa-ru haypta-w-i} that-AB-TO guinea.pig-TO fall-IW-PV-3S hole-AL disappear-PV-3S ‘Then, the guinea-pig entered into a hole and disappeared.’

According to Hardman (1966: 7, 1983a: 131), the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ is u:ka (or uka if extra-short vowels are accepted), it being distinguished from uka ‘there’ by vowel length; Belleza Castro (1995) observes no length distinction between the two demonstratives; instead of u:ka-t-qa, u:ka-tha (without topic marker) would be an alternative reading for Farf´an’s ukatxa. The derived verb hal-ru-isusually found as hal-uru-; the interpretation ‘to enter’ betrays the original meaning of hala-, ‘to run’, still found in Aymara. The verb haypta- can possibly be analysed as derived from haya ‘far’ 318 3 The Inca Sphere and -pta- ‘upward movement’, ‘to begin’; since this is not a productive formation with noun roots, we treat haypta-asanunderived root.

8. atqu-qa haruqa-w-i naray-k-uˇsu {at(u)qu-qa haruqa-w-i naray(a)-k-uˇsu} fox-TO remain-PV-3S wait-SM-SS.SU ‘The fox remained waiting.’

The verb haruqa-isrecorded as harwaqa-inBelleza Castro (1995).

9. k’uytyu anc haya haypta-w-i {k’uytyu anc(a) haya haypta-w-i} guinea.pig very long.time disappear-PV-3S ‘The guinea-pig disappeared for a very long time.’

Note that anca (Quechua anˇca) belongs to the common lexicon of Aymaran and Quechuan. The usual interpretation of haya is ‘far’, but it also has a temporal meaning.

10. u:ka-tha anc’-ˇsu-w-i atuq naray-k-iri-ru qal-u˜na uk-sana-tha qa:qa-tha {u:ka-tha anc’(a)-ˇsu-w-i atuq(u) naray(a)-k-iri-ru qal(a)-u˜na uk(a)-sana-tha qa:qa-tha} that-AB let.go-OW-PV-3S fox wait-SM-AG-AL stone-DI there-topside-AB rock-AB ‘Then, from a rock up there, he dropped some little stones on the fox, whowas waiting.’

The suffix -u˜na suppresses the final vowel of the preceding root and expresses the concept of a diminutive; as a full form, u˜na means ‘pup’ or ‘recently born animal’ both in Jaqaru and in Central Peruvian Quechua. The spatial root -sana enters into composition with a preceding noun and means ‘above’, ‘on top of’; when a case marker follows it, -sana eliminates the preceding vowel; -sana is also found in Quechua (for instance, in the Huarochir´ı manuscript; see sections 3.1 and 3.2.11).

11. k’uytyu ar-k-i atuq-ha sa-ˇsu “qa:qa-wa hal-k-i” {k’uytyu ar(u)-k-i atuq(u)-ha sa-(u)ˇsu qa:qa-wa hal(a)-k-i} guinea.pig call-SM-3S fox-AC say-SS.SU rock-AF fall-SM-3S ‘The guinea-pig called to the fox and said: “The rock is falling.”’

In the word sa-ˇsu ‘saying’, the root-vowel is preserved as a consequence of its minimal CV shape; as after most roots, -uˇsu loses its preceding vowel; sa-ˇsu accompanies verbs of communication in order to introduce direct speech. 3.4 The Mochica language 319

12. sa-k-i atuq-ha kat-nuˇs-p-taki qa:qa {sa-k-i atuq(u)-ha kat(u)-nuˇs(u)-p-taki qa:qa} say-SM-3S fox-AC hold-FN-3P-B rock ‘He tells the fox to hold the rock.’ 13. u:ka-tha k’uytyu ma-w-i ay-iri lyuq’acahl ˇ ya kat-nuˇs-p-taki {u:ka-t ha k’uytyu ma-w-i ay(a)-iri lyuq’acahl ˇ ya kat(u)-nuˇs(u)-p(ha)-taki} that-AB guinea.pig go-PV-3S carry.sticks-AG stick lathing sustain-IS-3P-B ‘Then, the guinea-pig went to fetch sticks and ladders in order to support it.’

Both Belleza Castro (1995) and Farf´an (1961) have lyuq’i and cahraˇ for lyuq’a and cahlˇ ya, respectively; the word caqlˇ ya is also found in Aymara and in Quechua; its most common meaning refers to the lathing used on roofs.

14. atqu-qa kat-k-uˇsu-wa haruqa-w-i qa:q-ha {at(u)qu-qa kat(u)-k-uˇsu-wa haruqa-w-i qa:q(a)-ha} fox-TO sustain-SM-SS.SU-AF stay-PV-3S rock-AC ‘The fox stayed behind, supporting the rock.’

After the present-tense marker -k- the subordinator -uˇsu retains its initial vowel. Instead of haruqa-, Farf´an has haruyqa-. Note the position of qa:q-ha outside the scope of the subordinate clause to which it grammatically belongs.

15. u:ka-tha k’uytyu ma-w-qh-i akiˇs-kama-ya {u:ka-t ha k’uytyu ma-w-qh(a)-i akiˇs(a)-kama-ya} that-AB guinea.pig go-PV-RP-3S now-LI-LS ‘And the guinea-pig went away again until today.’

The affix -ya in akiˇs-kama-ya is limited to this particular form; it can be left out.

3.4 The Mochica language Mochica is the only language of the Peruvian coastal region that has survived long enough to become documented in a substantial way. Its linguistic area was centred around the modern towns of Chiclayo and Lambayeque, and the historic town of Za˜na, in the coastal plain of northern Peru. According to Fernando de la Carrera Daza (1644), parish priest of Reque and the author of the only colonial grammar of the language that has been preserved, there were also groups of Mochica speakers in the highlands east and north of the nuclear region, in the modern departments of Cajamarca and Piura, including a colony of mitimaes (see the introduction to this chapter) near the town of Balsas in the Mara˜n´on river valley. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the existence of the 320 3 The Inca Sphere

Mochica language had become reduced to two coastal villages in the neighbourhood of Chiclayo: Eten and Monsef´u. When the German scholar Middendorf stayed in Eten in the 1880s, he still had the opportunity to work with bilingual, as well as monolingual speakers. About the middle of the twentieth century it was no longer possible to obtain more than fragmentary data from semi-speakers. At present, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the language is almost certainly extinct. The Mochica language has been known by several names, most of which are ambigu- ous or misleading. Carrera (1644) and Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on (1985 [1782–90]) called it Yunga,which is a Quechua word for low altitude areas with a temperate climate, for the populations living there and for their languages. Middendorf (1892) opted for the names Muchik (mentioned by the Augustinian chronicler Antonio de la Calancha in 1638) and Chimu with a reference to the kingdom of Chim´uorChimor, which had its capital at Chanch´an, just north of Trujillo, and which was subjugated by the Incas in about 1470 (Rowe 1948). The name Mochica or Muchic is reminiscent of the name of the indige- nous community of Moche south of Trujillo. However, Cerr´on-Palomino (1995b: 41) argues against a relationship between the language name Mochica and the town name Moche. The surroundings of Trujillo, including Chanch´an and Moche, belonged to the linguistic area of Quingnam, another language mentioned by Calancha. Quingnam was also referred to as the ‘Fisherman’s language’ (la lengua pescadora or la lengua yunga pescadora).108 Very little is known about this language of which neither a grammar, nor a dictionary has been preserved.109 Calancha suggests that it was in use all along the central Peruvian coast as far south as Carabayllo (near Lima), which was as far as the former kingdom of had extended. In a detailed analysis based on Carrera’s and Calancha’s affirmations and on a docu- ment of 1638 published by Ramos Cabredo (1950), Torero (1986) defines the linguistic area of the Mochica language as the coastal region extending between the R´ıo la Leche and the town of Motupe, to the north, and the Chicama river valley with the town of Paij´an, to the south. The southernmost part of this region, situated between the Jequetepeque (or Pacasmayo) and Chicama rivers apparently was a contact area where both Mochica and Quingnam competed due to a northward expansion of the Chim´u kings. On the north side, Mochica bordered on the Sechura language and the language of the oasis of Olmos, the latter known from specific mentions in colonial sources (Cabello Valboa 1586; Calancha 1638). The Sechura language survived until the nineteenth century (Rivet 1949).

108 It has been suggested that the ‘Fisherman’s language’ was a language distinct from Quingnam (Rabinowitz 1983), but this view is rejected in Torero (1986) on the basis of an analysis of the phrasing in Calancha’s text. 109 The Trujillan scholar Zevallos Qui˜nones (1989, 1992) has studied the lineage names of the indigenous elites of Lambayeque and of the Trujillo region. His data show a marked lexical and phonetic contrast between the two areas. 3.4 The Mochica language 321

For the time being, the Mochica language must be considered as a language isolate, notwithstanding the fact that several authors have tried to connect it to other languages. Jij´on y Caama˜no (1941: 6) has proposed a genetic relationship with the extinct (and virtually undocumented) Ca˜nar and Puruh´a languages of the Ecuadorian highlands.110 Relations of Mochica with Mayan, with Mapuche, and with Uru-Chipaya (Stark 1972a) have been suggested as well. The Mochica language is well known for its unique exotic sound system, which has generated even more exotic orthographies (especially Carrera Daza’s).From a structural point of view, it is notoriously different from both Quechua and Aymara, the influence in either direction being limited to a few loan words from Quechua and vice-versa (Cerr´on- Palomino 1989c). It lacks both the morphological complexity and the rigid regularity of the major Andean languages.

3.4.1 The sounds of Mochica The reconstruction and the recovery of the Mochica sound system are problematic. The various scholars of the language have developed and used different notations. Both Carrera Daza and Middendorf went a long way towards explaining the value of their symbols, but neither of them succeeded in eliminating all doubts as to the pronuncia- tion of these symbols, their observations often being very far apart from each other. A very helpful comparison of the sources, enriched with personal observations obtained in 1929, is found in Lehmann’s notes, published by Schumacher de Pe˜na (1991). The much awaited field notes collected by Br¨uning in 1904–5 are kept in the Ethnographic Museum of Hamburg in unpublished form (Cerr´on-Palomino 1995b: 66–7). An addi- tional complication for the interpretation of the original Mochica sound system is the fact that several crucial phonological developments occurred between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, which makes it hazardous to use the more recent data for the interpretation of the older materials. Furthermore, there remains the question whether the dialect that survived in the Eten–Monsef´u area was representative of the language as a whole. The seventeenth century Mochica sound system has been the object of several mod- ern reconstructions (Hovdhaugen 1992; Cerr´on-Palomino 1995b; Torero 1997), but the results are not at all concurrent.111 Since the exact pronunciation of the Mochica sounds remains a matter of speculation, the examples in the following pages are repre- sented in their original orthography. In the section on grammar, grammatical forms and,

110 The only suggestive similarity which Jij´on y Caama˜no indicates between Mochica and Ca˜nar is a single word, Mochica nech [neˇc] ‘river’, recorded as necha in Ca˜nar. 111 Anew comparative study of the Mochica lexicon preserved in the different sources is Salas (2002). It contains a discussion of the sound system. 322 3 The Inca Sphere occasionally, lexical items will be given in Carrera Daza’sseventeenth century orthogra- phy, followed by a slash ‘/’ and Middendorf’stranscription whenever there is a difference. The oldest known specimens of the Mochica language are found in a religious text- book, Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum,byGer´onimo de Or´e (1607). Its spelling does not cast much light on the complexities of the language. Carrera Daza’s Arte de la lengua yunga, best known through Altieri’s commented re-edition of 1939, is funda- mental for understanding the phonological and morphosyntactic characteristics of the language. Villareal (1921) incorporates Carrera Daza’s grammar and presents the data in a reorganised but often erratic way. Middendorf (1892) is based on contemporary data, although Carrera Daza’s Arte provided the framework for part of the elicitation. Carrera Daza distinguishes six vowels in Mochica: , < e>, , , and <œ>.112 The latter is the object of an impressionistic description to the effect that “it begins as an e and ends as an u,insuch a way that there are two vowels in one”.113 Furthermore, Carrera Daza uses a diacritic to indicate length. It remains restricted to a few roots and to the ending -ˆo,which is part of the genitive construction:

(232) utzhˆ ‘big’ (233) aiu-ng-œn-ˆo that-G-PL-AJ ‘belonging to those’

Torero (1986, 1997) points out that Carrera Daza’s symbol does not always refer to a full vowel. It may indicate a non-syllabic glide as in example (233), and it may either indicate or emphasise the palatal nature of an adjacent consonant, as in nai˜˜ n ‘bird’ (/nyany/) or cio¸ ‘he, it’ (/syo/). According to this author, vowel sequences and true diphthongs did not occur in seventeenth century Mochica, given the fact that non-nuclear can always be interpreted either as a consonant, or as a palatality marker, whereas non-nuclear is not found. Middendorf (1892) distinguishes eleven plain vowels, two ‘impure’ vowels and four diphthongs. Although one can assume that some of these distinctions are liable to be eliminated by reanalysis, this is not possible in a number of cases where minimal pairs are provided. Reanalysis leading to elimination may be possible in the case of the diphthongs (ai, ei, oi, ui)ifone considers the second element to be a palatality marker, as does Torero (see above). It should be observed, however, that in nineteenth century Mochica, the

112 Villareal (1921) uses the symbol <æ>,whereas Altieri’s 1939 edition of Carrera Daza’s gram- mar has capital <Æ> alternating with standard <œ>.For reasons of transparency we will only use the latter symbol in our examples. 113 ‘Tiene principio de e yfindeu,demanera que son dos vocales en una’ (Altieri 1939: 11). 3.4 The Mochica language 323 palatality distinction no longer had the significance which it had two centuries earlier. Middendorf emphasises the distinct, almost separated pronunciation of the elements that make up a diphthong. As it appears, the fact that i functioned as a palatality marker did not mean that its presence was merely an orthographic device. The two ‘impure’ vowels, which Middendorf writes a¨ and u˚ respectively, are discussed by that author in great detail, with the confession that he never managed to pronounce them properly. Middendorf’s characterisation of the impure vowels is essentially the same as that of Carrera Daza’s for the symbol <œ> with the difference that the ‘u’ element is said to be more strongly represented in the vowel u˚, and more weakly so, if at all, in the vowel a¨. The vowel u˚ is relatively infrequent and seems to be restricted to roots with a preference for initial and pre-labial positions, whereas no such restrictions apply to a¨.However, there is at least one minimal pair: ap¨ ‘hot pepper’ versus up˚ ‘salt’ (cf. Torero 1997: 125). These two words are clearly kept apart in Lehmann’s phonetic notation (Schumacher de Pe˜na 1991): ‘hot pepper’ œˆp, ‘salt’ u˘¯up. Carrera Daza only recorded the word for ‘salt’ as œp. The high frequency of one of the so-called impure vowels (viz. Carrera Daza’s <œ> corresponding to Middendorf’s a¨), which occurred in endings presumably unstressed as well as in roots, leads to the question whether indeed this vowel represented a single phoneme. Mochica morphophonemics includes a rule of vowel loss in unstressed open syllables which always affects precisely that vowel. It would not be far-fetched to assume that the Mochica vowel inventory included a schwa-type vowel which may have been the product of a neutralisation of several full vowels, rather than an allophone of œ/a¨ alone.114 This mechanism of vowel loss is illustrated in (234):

(234) nofœn˜ nofn-œr-ˆ ˜ o man man-G-AJ ‘man’ ‘belonging to the man’ (235) mit-apœc mit-apc-o-i˜n bring-AG bring-AG-AR-1S.SG ‘one who brings’ ‘I am in the habit of bringing.’ (lit. ‘I am one who brings.’)

Middendorf’s inventory of plain vowels (Middendorf 1892: 48–51) includes four long vowels a¯, ¯ı, o¯ and u¯,which are matched by four ‘normal’ vowels a, ˘ı, o˘,115 and u. Additionally, there are two more short vowels a˘ and u˘. The pronunciation of a˘ is said to be like a in German before doubled consonants, whereas u¯ is said to be similar to u in

114 Torero (1997: 125) speaks of a vocal de apoyo ‘support vowel’. 115 The symbols ˘ı and o˘ are not consistently employed by Middendorf; in most of his grammar he replaces them with i and o. 324 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.16 Mochica vowels as represented in Carrera Daza (1644) and Middendorf (1892)

Carrera Daza a,ae ˆ i o,ˆou,ˆuoe Middendorf a,a, ¯ ae(¯ ˘ e) ¯ı, (i), ˘ı¯o, (o),ou,¯ ˘ u,u¨ ˘ a,u ˚

English ‘but’. No length distinction is reported for the front mid vowel e.116 It is doubtful whether all these options were indeed distinctive. However, the length distinction seems to have been functional, considering the minimal pairs recorded by Middendorf (cf. Cerr´on-Palomino 1995b: 81–2):117

(236) pok p¯ok ‘to enter’ ‘to be called’ (237) rak r¯ak ‘mountain-lion’ ‘excrement’ (Middendorf 1892: 54)

The vowel symbols used by Carrera Daza and Middendorf are summarised in table 3.16. The vowel symbols used by Middendorf which are not presented as part of his inventory are given in parentheses. The intricacies of the Mochica consonant inventory motivated Carrera Daza to in- troduce several new symbols and combinations of existing symbols, such as , and . Their interpretation continues to be a matter of debate, in particular because the sounds they represent were subject to change during the last centuries of the language’s existence. Hovdhaugen (1992) and Torero (1986, 1997) have established a correlation between palatal and plain consonants, which covers most of the system, except for the labial series and the vibrants. The occurrence of a palatality contrast in the velar series is defended in Torero (1986, 1997). The areas of the consonant system that were most affected by change during the period between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries were the laterals and the sibilants. The laterals partly developed into velar fricatives; a crucial sibilant contrast disappeared. Carrera Daza appears to have represented the Mochica consonants quite adequately, but, as in contemporary Spanish, competing symbols and symbol combinations some- times referred to a single sound. The absence of comments on the pronunciation of a symbol may be held to indicate phonetic similarity with the corresponding Spanish sound. This is of particular importance for the sibilants.

116 Although no long e¯ is foreseen in Middendorf’s phonetic introduction, he does, inconsistently, use that symbol in his examples (for instance in k¯en ‘half’, Middendorf 1892: 62). 117 At least in one case, a long vowel in Middendorf is matched by a more complex sequence in seventeenth-century Mochica: Carrera Daza piiœc [piyək] ‘to give’ versus Middendorf p¯ık (cf. Torero 1997: 120). 3.4 The Mochica language 325

The symbols for voiceless labial consonants

and were probably pronounced as in Spanish, although the fricative f may have been bilabial, rather than labiodental. In the nineteenth century, f had developed an optional voiced allophone in intervocalic and syllable-final positions; e.g. cɥœfœt ‘snake’ (Villareal 1921: 17) is represented as chuvet´ or ts˚uv¨at in Middendorf. A remarkable fact is the absence of the glide or semi-vowel [w] in seventeenth century Mochica. In loans from Quechua or Spanish, [w] or [β]ofthe original language were consistently replaced by , e.g. faccɥa ‘poor’ (Villareal 1921: 21) from Quechua wakˇca, and fak ‘ox’ (Middendorf 1892: 60) from Spanish vaca.As in most countries where a Spanish writing tradition prevails, Carrera Daza wrote for the velar stop before e and i,but elsewhere. Seventeenth-century Mochica apparently had no velar fricatives. The nasal series comprised four positions: bilabial , alveodental , palatal and velar . Carrera Daza also uses the velar nasal symbol when the velar character of the sound can be derived from environmental restrictions, as in cengque¸ ‘throat’ (Altieri 1939: 80). The vibrant series presumably included a trilled and a tap ,acontrast that does not seem to have been distinctive.118 Both and are found in word-initial, medial and final position. The glide y (often written , see above) was a consonant phoneme in Mochica. In the alveodental series two sounds were recorded, voiceless and voiced . The status of is somewhat problematic, as it did not occur in word-initial position but mainly in suffixes and at the end of morphemes. If it was a voiced stop, it would have had neither velar nor labial counterparts. The lack of comments in the sources concerning its pronunciation suggests that it was in most instances pronounced as in Spanish, in which case it may have been a fricative. The sibilants and their corresponding affricates were characterised by a contrast be- tween a palatal articulation, on the one hand, and what were possibly apical and dental articulations on the other. The palatal sibilant and affricate were written [ˇs] and [ˇc], respectively, as was the common usage in many parts of the Spanish realm. The non-palatal sibilants were indicated by means of the symbol sets , , and , , , respectively. Torero (1997: 109–12) assigns an apico-alveolar inter- pretation (presumably as in Castilian Spanish) to the , set, which mainly rests on the fact that Carrera Daza’s comments do not suggest otherwise. Cerr´on-Palomino (1995b: 103–5) prefers a retroflex interpretation. Both authors coincide in assigning an (alveo)dental value to the , , set. The real phonetic nature of these two sets of symbols may very well always remain unknown, because the assumed con- trast was lost after Carrera Daza’s time. Torero further analyses the sequences ,

118 Remember, however, the case of the Quechua dialect of Pacaraos (section 3.2.9.), which exhibits a non-predictable contrast between r and rr,even though minimal pairs are lacking. 326 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.17 Sibilants in seventeenth-century Mochica (following Torero 1997)

Plain Palatal

Dental c,c, ¸ z [s] ci,ci, ¸ iz [sy] Apical s, ss [¸s] x, ix [ˇs]

, as representing the palatal counterpart of the dental sound represented by the , , set. This is plausible because in Carrera Daza the palatality marker is frequently found in that environment, but never in the immediate vicinity of , .Taking a further step, Torero then interprets the palatal sibilant as the palatal counterpart of , . His analysis of the sibilants is represented in table 3.17. The coincidence of the presumed apical and dental series led to a reordering of the palatality distinction. This becomes evident in Middendorf’s work, where the symbols s and ss can be accompanied by i when s, ss corresponds to in Carrera Daza.

(238) ciad-ei˜¸ n (Villareal 1921: 12) siad-ei˜n, ssiad-ei˜n (Middendorf 1892: 89, 91) sleep-1S.SG ‘I sleep’

The affricate , one of the new symbol combinations introduced by Carrera Daza, corresponds with an alveodental affricate [ts]innineteenth- and twentieth century Mochica. There would be no reason to assume that the seventeenth-century affricate recorded by Carrera Daza was anything else than [ts], had he not himself underscored the exotic properties of the sound represented by his symbol . Carrera Daza’s orthography also suggests something more complex than [ts]. Where other authors stick to the alveodental interpretation, Torero (1997) holds that must be interpreted as an apico-alveolar affricate, which would indeed have been an exotic sound to the ears of a colonial Spaniard.119 The subsequent disappearance of the apical–dental contrast would then have affected the affricate as well, reducing it to a more ‘normal’ alveodental affricate [ts]. The sequence is also found in combination with the palatality marker , for instance in cuntzhiu ‘overhanging lock of hair’ (Villareal 1921: 14). Hovdhaugen,

119 An apico-alveolar affricate [ts¸], traditionally written as ts,isfound in Basque. One cannot expect Carrera Daza to have been familiar with it. 3.4 The Mochica language 327 who takes to be dental rather than apico-alveolar, treats the combination as its palatal counterpart [cy],120 but Torero (1997: 115) suggests that it may rather be the palatal counterpart of the stop t. Whatever solution is chosen, the sound was presumably an affricate since Middendorf (1892: 59) recorded kunzio for the word in question. One of the most intriguing symbols in Carrera Daza’swork is ,which is reported to represent a sound similar to, but distinct from the affricate symbolised by [ˇc], hence the ‘reversed’ h.Inthe seventeenth century it was found in all positions, including the word- and syllable-final positions, e.g. in lecɥ ‘head’. Although several instances of original had become ch by the end of the nineteenth century, the sound in question was still clearly present in the time of Middendorf, who represents it asc ´h.He describes the sound as an alveodental stop followed by an ‘ich-laut’ [tc¸ ] (Middendorf 1892: 51). Carrera Daza’s is interpreted as a palatalised alveodental stop [ty] by Cerr´on-Palomino (1995b: 96), as a palatalised palatal affricate [ˇcy]byHovdhaugen (1992) and as a palatalised velar stop [ky]byTorero (1986, 1997). The latter somewhat remarkable interpretation is based on the argument of homorganity in consonant clusters. As a matter of fact, wasfavoured over after a velar stop during the process of borrowing the Quechua word wakˇca ‘poor’. The latter became faccɥa [faktya ∼ fakkya], not *faccha [fakˇca], in Mochica. Furthermore, nasal consonants could be velar before , suggesting assimilation to the initial sound of an affricate with a velar initial element, as in (239):

(239) cangcɥu (Villareal 1921: 12) kangchu (Middendorf 1892: 59) ‘jaw’

However, there are counterexamples, such as (240), where no assimilation to the velar position has been recorded.

(240) cœncɥo (Villareal 1921: 12) k˚uncho (Middendorf 1892: 61) ‘meat’

Seventeenth-century Mochica had a remarkable system of laterals, in which the op- positions of voice and palatality played a central role. One of the special symbols in- troduced by Carrera Daza, has been identified as a voiceless palatalised lateral [l y](Torero 1986).121 It contrasted with a voiced counterpart ly. Between the sev- enteenth and the nineteenth centuries the voiceless sound developed into a palatalised velar fricative [¸c], written ’ by Middendorf (241), whereas the voiced sound remained unchanged (242).

120 For reasons of notational uniformity, we substitute [cy] for Hovdhaugen’s [t¸¸s]. 121 Hovdhaugen interprets this symbol as a palatalised alveopalatal fricative [ˇsy]. 328 3 The Inca Sphere

(241) xllaxll (Villareal 1921: 44) ’ai’ (Middendorf ‘silver’ 1892: 62) (242) llapti loc (Villareal 1921: 26) llapti jok (Middendorf ‘sole of 1892: 59) the foot’

Carrera Daza’s grammar does not contain evidence of the existence of a pair of non- palatal laterals parallel to the palatal ones. Only one lateral is attested. In many cases this lateral developed into a velar fricative j [x] between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries; cf. (242), and the examples in (243):

(243) a. la (Villareal 1921: 24) j¯a (Middendorf ‘water’ 1892: 63) b. col (Villareal 1921: 14) koj (Middendorf ‘horse’ 1892: 60) (< * ‘llama’)

In other cases, however, the lateral was preserved (244). On this basis and for reasons of symmetry, one may assume, with Torero (1986), that there may have existed a contrast between voiced and voiceless plain laterals as well, one of which developed into a velar fricative, whereas the other did not. Since there is no direct evidence for such a development, it must remain a matter of speculation.

(244) loqu-ei˜n (Villareal 1921: 26) lok-ei˜n (Middendorf 1892: 184) want 1S.SG ‘I want’

Table 3.18 presents an overview of the principal consonant symbols and symbol combinations used by Carrera Daza and Middendorf and their possible values at different stages of their development.

3.4.2 Mochica grammar Mochica is predominantly a suffixing language with a rather loose morphological struc- ture. Grammatical relations are indicated by case or postpositions. There are no affixes indicating the grammatical person of the possessor. The genitive case form of per- sonal and demonstrative pronouns is used for that purpose. As in Aymara and Quechua, modifiers precede the head. Irregular forms, including those involving ablaut and root substitution, are common. As a result of the way in which the language was documented, it is no longer possible to obtain a full picture of these irregularities. Furthermore, the sources show a certain amount of insecurity where vowels are concerned. Very often, alternative possibilities are presented as equivalent, without a suggestion of semantic or pragmatic differences that could have played a role. 3.4 The Mochica language 329

Table 3.18 Overview of the consonant symbols in the Mochica grammars of Carrera Daza (1644) and Middendorf (1892)

Carrera Daza Middendorf Possible phonetic values (1644) (1892) and historical development

ppp ff,vf,ϕ>v, β ttt ddð, θ c,c, ¸ z s, ss s tzh ts ts¸,ts > ts s, ss s, sss ¸ > s ch chc ˇ xˇsˇs cɥ ch´ ky,ty,tc¸ > ty,tc¸ c, qu k k xll ’ l y > c¸ ll ll ly lll ljl,l> x r, rr r, rr r, rr mmm nnn n˜˜ nny ng ng ŋ i,y i y

Several characteristics of Mochica are reminiscent of the Mayan languages. The language has a system of numeral classifiers and a fully developed passive. Passive constructions are often preferred over active constructions, the agent being expressed in the genitive case or, with some nouns (mainly kinship terms), by a special agentive case marker. Many substantives have two forms, a possessed (relational) form and a non-possessed (absolute) form. One of the most remarkable features of Mochica is the use of verbal personal reference markers that can either be suffixed to the verb stem itself, or follow the element preceding the verb stem. They indicate the person of the subject, whereas person of object is not expressed in the verb form. Although these personal reference markers are not formally related to the independent personal pronouns, their combined use as subject markers is considered ungrammatical (Villareal 1921: 6). In example sentence (245), the marker for first-person singular -ei˜n is attached to the root met ‘to bring’. Alternatively, it can 330 3 The Inca Sphere be located after the element which precedes the root, in this case the object pup ‘wood’ (246):

(245) met-ei˜n pup m¨ai˜nanai-n¨am bring-1S.SG wood I.G house make-F.SP ‘I bring wood in order to build my house.’ (Middendorf 1892: 160) (246) pup ei˜n met m¨ai˜nanai-n¨am wood 1S.SG bring I.G house make-F.SP ‘I bring wood in order to build my house.’ (Middendorf 1892: 160)

Alternatively, the personal pronoun moi˜n ‘I’ is located before the root met from which it is separated by either one of the elements e, fe or ang. The grammatical descriptions do not provide information as to a possible semantic difference between these three options, which are all translatable as ‘I bring’ (247):

(247) moi˜n´e met xllac122 or moi˜nfemet xllac or moi˜n ang met xllac Ibebring fish ‘I bring fish.’ (Altieri 1939: 51)

The invariable elements e, fe and ang are described as equivalents of the verb ‘to be’ and can be used as such in combination with a free pronoun (248):

(248) moi˜neor moi˜nfeor moi˜n ang Ibe ‘I am.’ (Villareal 1921: 5)

Mochica also has a conjugated verb chi conveying the meaning ‘to be’.123 In combi- nation with this verb, the use of the independent pronoun as subject is rejected. When followed by the element -pa, the conjugated forms of the verb ‘to be’ obtain the meaning of ‘to have’ (249):

(249) chi-˜n124 chi-˜n-pa be-1S.SG be-1S.SG-have ‘I am.’ ‘I have.’ (Villareal 1921: 5, 100)

Finally, the notion ‘to be’ can be expressed by locating a personal reference marker directly after a full pronoun. In that case the use of the independent pronoun in

122 The element e is often, but not always, found as e´ in Carrera Daza (Altieri 1939). 123 The verb chi is mainly used in a copula function. For existential ‘to be’ loc/lok is preferred. 124 For the suppression of the vowel in -ei˜n see below. 3.4 The Mochica language 331

Table 3.19 Personal reference in Mochica (Altieri 1939: 19–21)

Pronouns Affixes Nominative Genitive

1 pers. sing. -ei˜n moi˜n mœi˜n[-ˆo] 1 pers. plur. -eix mœich mœich[-ˆo] 2 pers. sing. -az tzhang ∼ tzha tzhœng[-ˆo] 2 pers. plur. -az-chi tzhœich ∼ tzha-chi tzhœich[-ˆo] 3 pers. sing. (close) -ang mo mu-ng[-ˆo] (neutral) cio¸ ciu-ng[-ˆ ¸ o] (far) aio aiu-ng[-ˆo] 3 pers. plur. (close) -œn-ang mo-ng-œn mu-ng-œn[-ˆo] (neutral) cio-ng-œn¸ ciu-ng-œn[-ˆ ¸ o] (far) aio-ng-œn aiu-ng-oen[-ˆo]

combination with the corresponding personal reference marker does not appear to be problematic (250):

(250) moi˜nei˜n I 1S.SG ‘I am.’ (Villareal 1921: 5)

Interrogative sentences of the disjunctive type provide the only context in which the personal reference markers occur in a sentence-initial position, e.g. in (251) and (252), without having to be preceded by any other element. It follows from this that the Mochica personal reference markers cannot be considered to be bound affixes in the strict sense, although they do behave as such when they occur after a verb stem (see below).

(251) as ton-od ts¨ang ef 2S beat/kill-PA you.G father.RL ‘Did you beat your father?’ (Middendorf 1892: 136) (252) ang funo-´ch¨am 3S eat-PR ‘Is he/are they eating?’ (Middendorf 1892: 95)

The personal reference system of Mochica is based on three persons and two numbers. Personal pronouns exist for first and second persons singular and plural. For third-person demonstrative pronouns are used. In third-person forms and in nouns in general, plurality is expressed optionally by means of the suffix -œn/-¨an.Intable 3.19 the personal reference markers are represented in their affix shape, along with the corresponding free pronouns 332 3 The Inca Sphere

(including demonstratives for third person) in their nominative and genitive forms. The short forms of the genitive pronouns are used as modifiers in noun phrases and as agents in passive constructions. The long forms in -ˆo /-¯o are used in predicative constructions with ‘to be’.125 As shown in table 3.19, the vowel of the first-person suffixes -ei˜n,-eix/-eiˇs can be suppressed by a preceding vowel, as in chi-˜n ‘I am’, funo-i˜n ‘I eat’ (funo ‘to eat’). The vowelofthe second-person suffix -az/-as is unstable; it is alternatively found as -œz/-¨as or -ez/-es, and it is also affected by suppression after another vowel, e.g. chi-z ‘you are’, funo-z ‘you eat’. Note that the velar nasal preceding the pluralising suffix -œn in the nominative forms (in mo-ng-œn, for instance) is not part of the postvocalic realisation of that suffix. With other vowel-final roots, such as ciorna¸ /ssiorna ‘(someone) alone’, a hiatus is preferred before -œn: ciorna¸ œn/ssiorna-¨an.Inthe genitive forms, however, -ng-isthe normal postvocalic realisation of the marker for that case (here accompanied by ablaut). Although Mochica has no general case marker for objects – they are indicated in the same way as subjects –, some pronouns do have a special form for that purpose. A first- person-plural accusative or dative object (‘us’) is indicated by nof˜ ; the demonstratives have object forms moss, cioss¸ /ssioss and aioss, respectively. Case marking in Mochica is constructed around the nominative–genitive distinction. The remaining case markers have been analysed as postpositions, which are either added to the nominative or to the genitive form.126 It should be observed, however, that this is the traditional view, and that some of the elements which are directly added to the ‘nominative’ root, such as -len ‘with (comitative)’, -mœn/m¨an ‘as’, ‘following’, -na ‘through’ (adverbialiser), -(ng)er ‘with (instrumental)’, -(n)ich ‘from’, -pœn/-p¨an ‘as’, ‘in the function of’, -tim ‘for the sake of’ and -totna ‘towards’ may be case suffixes, rather than postpositions127 (cf. Middendorf 1892: 125–6).

(253) ssiung fanu-len128 he.G dog-C ‘with his dog’ (Middendorf 1892: 98) (254) pe˜n-o-p¨an ang ak-¨am good-AR-CP be say-PS ‘He is held to be good.’ (Middendorf 1892: 100)

125 The existence of forms with and without -ˆo motivated Carrera Daza to declare that there were two genitives in Mochica (Altieri 1939: 15–16). 126 There is one preposition pir ‘without’. It is followed by substantives in their relational form (e.g. pir chi¸cœr ‘without judgment’, from chi¸cœc ‘judgment’, ‘understanding’). 127 The allomorphs with an initial nasal are postvocalic; -totna may be related to tot ‘face’. 128 Middendorf (1892: 55) mentions a case of -len following the short form of the genitive (in fanu-ng-len ‘with the dog’). 3.4 The Mochica language 333

One postposition, the benefactive marker -pœn/-p¨an, follows the ‘long’ genitive case form, expanded with the element -ˆo.

(255) mo cɥilpi ang mœi˜n ef-ei-ˆo-pœn this blanket be I.G father-G-AJ-B ‘This blanket is for my father.’ (Altieri 1939: 13)

The postpositions that follow the ‘short’ genitive form all have to do with location in space. The marker -nic/-nik indicates location or motion towards ‘in’, ‘at’, whereas -lec/ -lek refers to a less specific location ‘near’, ‘at’ (256). Several substantives have special locative forms in which an ending -Vc/-Vk, with an unpredictable vowel i, e or œ/a¨,is added directly to the root, e.g. en-ec/en-ek ‘at home’ (cf. an ‘house’), mœcɥ-œc/m¨ach-¨ak ‘in the hands’ (cf. mœcɥ/m¨ach ‘hand’). These cases are said by Middendorf (1892: 96) to take their origin in the combination of genitive stems followed by -nic/-nik,aconclu- sion which in our view remains open for discussion. The remaining postpositions that follow genitive stems indicate spatial positions in relation to an object. Several of them are derived from body part names and contain the element -Vc/-Vk (257), e.g. lecɥœc/ jech¨ak ‘above’ (cf. lecɥ/jech ‘head’), lucɥœc/juch¨ak ‘among’, ‘between’ (cf. locɥ/joch ‘eyes’), tutœc/tut¨ak ‘before’, ‘in front of’ (cf. tot ‘face’). The postpositions capœc/kap¨ak ‘on top of’, ssecœn/ssek¨an ‘below’ and turquich/turkich ‘behind’ are less easy to analyse.

(256) pedro-ng-lec Pedro-G-L ‘at Pedro’s’ (Villareal 1921: 110) (257) chap-e jech-¨ak129 roof-G head-L (above) ‘on top of the roof’ (Middendorf 1892: 97)

The shape of the genitive of Mochica nouns is partly unpredictable. In wordlists (e.g. Middendorf 1892: 58–64; Villareal 1921: 9–44) the genitive ending is added to each entry. According to Middendorf (1892: 52–4), -œr-ˆo/-¨ar-¯o is found after voiceless stops, nasals and part of the affricates (ts, ch). After other consonants -ei-ˆo/-ei-¯o is found. The genitive ending after vowels is -ng-ˆo/-ng-¯o. The plural suffix -œn-/-¨an- is inserted before the genitive suffixes -œr-/-¨ar- and -ei-,but after -ng-.

(258) m¯ud-ei-¯om¯ud-¨an-ei-¯o ant-G-AJ ant-PL-G-AJ ‘belonging to the ant’ ‘belonging to the ants’ (Middendorf 1892: 53)

129 Villareal (1921: 110) an-i cɥap-œ lecɥ-œc ‘above the roof of the house’. 334 3 The Inca Sphere

(259) chelu-ng-¯o130 chelu-ng-¨an-¯o hawk-G-AJ hawk-G-PL-AJ ‘belonging to the hawk’ ‘belonging to the hawks’ (Middendorf 1892: 53)

Instead of -ei-ˆo, Carrera often has -ii-ˆo. This is frequently the case after roots ending in palatal consonants; e.g. ciœiz¸ /ssi¨as ‘word’, genitive ciœiz-ii-o¸ (Altieri 1939: 69).131 However, genitives in -ii-ˆo were also recorded with roots not ending in a palatal conso- nant (e.g. far/farr ‘celebration’, genitive far-`ıi-o), whereas -ei-ˆo has been found after a ; e.g. eiz/eis ‘child (relative)’, genitive eizi-ei-o (eis-i-¯o in Middendorf 1892: 56). Middendorf also gives a number of exceptions and irregular forms, such as rak-ei-¯o from rak ‘mountain-lion’, pe-ng-¯o from pei ‘grass’ and pojod-ei-¯o from poj ‘spleen’.132 The word col/koj for ‘horse’ (originally ‘llama’) has two irregular options for the genitive: col-ui-ˆo and col-ung-ˆo (Altieri 1939: 15). The interrogative pronouns ei˜n ‘who’ and ech ‘what’ have special genitive forms: i˜n-ˆo/i˜n-¯o and ich-ˆo/ich-¯o (Altieri 1939: 22). As we anticipated, the element -ˆo/-o¯, traditionally described as a component of all genitive endings, is absent from genitive nouns modifying another noun in a possessive construction, in genitive nouns referring to the agent of a passive construction and before postpositions (except benefactive -pœn/-p¨an, see above). Middendorf (1892: 52) points out that -ˆo was not only stressed and long, but that it was also pronounced separately. It may be assumed that -ˆo wasagrammatical element of its own, indicating, among other things, the predicative character of a genitive noun. The ‘short’ endings of the genitive are -œr/-¨ar, -e and -ng, respectively.

(260) mœi˜n ef-e cɥilpi-ss I.G father-G blanket-RL ‘my father’s blanket’ (Villareal 1921: 71) (261) ni-ng˜ j¯a sea-G water ‘the water of the sea’ (Middendorf 1892: 55) (262) mo an ang aionofn-¨ ˜ ar ef-ei-¯o this house be that man-G house-G-AJ ‘This house belongs to that man’s father.’ (Middendorf 1892: 56) (263) chuvet-¨´ ar rr¯an-¨ad.o snake-G bite-SN ‘bitten by a snake’ (Middendorf 1892: 55)

130 In Carrera Daza (Altieri 1939: 83) the word for ‘hawk’ is recorded as cɥelˆu. 131 The diacritic on the ending -ˆo is often left out in Carrera Daza’s grammar. 132 In Carrera Daza (Altieri 1939: 81) pol, polod-ei-o. 3.4 The Mochica language 335

(264) nech-¨ar-nik river-G-L ‘in(to) the river’ (Middendorf 1892: 96)

As we anticipated, a number of kinship terms which form their genitive in -ei-ˆo/ -ei-¯o also have a special case ending -en to indicate the agent in a passive construction (265). The agentive form of ei˜n ‘who’ is i˜n-in (Altieri 1939: 22) or i˜n-en (Middendorf 1892: 133).

(265) uxllur-en ei˜n xllip-quem [xllip-co ‘call’, ‘address’] nephew-GA 1S.SG speak-T.PS ‘I am called by my nephew.’ (Altieri 1939: 16)

The formation of relational substantives, also referred to in the literature as the ‘sec- ond nominative’ (Middendorf 1892: 56), often involves a suffix -s or -ss,asincɥilpi-ss; cf. (260). The agentive nominalisation in -(V)pœc/-(V)p¨ak can be made relational by adding -œss/-¨ass, e.g. chi-co-pœc-œss ‘someone’s creator’ (from chi ‘to be’ and -co/ -ko ‘transitiviser’; cf. Altieri 1939: 14). Of many bisyllabic substantives which end in -Vc/-Vk,arelational counterpart is obtained by changing the final stop into -r; e.g. ne˜˜ n-uc/ne˜˜ n-uk ‘toy’ (from nei˜˜ n ‘to play’), relational ne˜˜ n-ur (Middendorf 1892: 57; Villareal 1921: 33). A third possibility to form relationals is by the addition of -Vd, e.g. col-œd/koj-¨ad from col/koj ‘horse’. With typically possessed nouns, the relational form may be the more basic one, whereas the absolute form is more marked. Such nouns often have the ending -quic/-kik in the absolute, which is either absent, or replaced by -Vng in the relational.

(266) a. ef-kik ‘father’ (absolute) ef ‘father’ (relational) b. pol-kik ‘heart’ (absolute) pol-¨ang ‘heart’ (relational)133 (Middendorf 1892: 57)

The relational and absolute forms of substantives need not be etymologically related. This appears to be the case with the word mecherrœc/mecherr¨ak ‘woman’ (absolute) in relation to ssonœng/sson¨ang ‘wife’ (relational). Adjectives in Mochica precede the substantive they modify. In that case they are often followed by a suffix -o (-io after vowels), which is not to be confounded with the marker -ˆo/-¯o of the extended genitive. Carrera Daza’s grammar also contains many cases of -o with adjectives in a predicative position (267). When the adjective acts as a modifier, the plural marker -œn/-¨an is attached to the modifying adjective rather than to the modified

133 Villareal (1921: 37) translates the word polquic as ‘stomach’ or ‘will’. 336 3 The Inca Sphere substantive, in which case it precedes -o (268). When the substantive is in the genitive case, the plural marker remains on the substantive (269).

(267) mœich eixutzh-o ˆ we 1S.PL tall-AR ‘We are tall.’ (Altieri 1939: 32) (268) uts-¨¯ an-o nep¨at big-PL-AR tree ‘high trees’ (Middendorf 1892: 65) (269) uts-o¯ nep¨at-¨an-¨ar-¯o big-AR tree-PL-G-AJ ‘belonging to high trees’ (Middendorf 1892: 65)

The suffix -o is also found after substantive roots that are used attributively before another noun.

(270) mecherrœc-onai˜ ˜ n woman-AR bird ‘a female bird’ (Villareal 1921: 33)

Adjectives can be turned into abstract nouns by adding the suffix -œss/-¨ass,asin pe˜n-œss ‘goodness’ from pe˜n ‘good’. Such nouns are always relational. The verbal system of Mochica presents a rather hybrid picture, in which suffixes, prefixes, as well as adverb-like elements play a part. The preterit is formed by the addition of a suffix -(V)da- (-da- after vowels), to which the personal reference mark- ers are attached. When the personal reference markers are moved to a position which precedes the verb (see above), the resulting preterit stem ends in -(V)d, e.g. met-ed (bring-PA). The future tense of the verb met ‘to bring’ is formed by means of a prefix t- followed by (partially reduced) personal reference markers and subsequently by the root. In seventeenth-century Mochica the second-person plural marker was split into a prefix and a suffix part (Altieri 1939: 34).134 Both the preterit and the future are represented in table 3.20. A remote past tense can be expressed by adding the suffix -top,but only with a third-person subject.

(271) ssiu-ng kap¨ak j˚um-top that-G upon die-RM ‘On that (the Cross) He died.’ (Middendorf 1892: 158)

134 In nineteenth-century Mochica this was no longer the case, as can be seen in the example t-¨as-chi tem (F-2-PL love) ‘you (plural) love’ (Middendorf 1892: 80). 3.4 The Mochica language 337

Table 3.20 Mochica preterit and future tenses (Altieri 1939)

Preterit Future

1 pers. sing. met-eda-i˜n ‘I brought.’ t-i˜n-met ‘I shall bring.’ 1 pers. plur. met-eda-ix ‘We brought.’ t-ix-met ‘We shall bring.’ 2 pers. sing. met-eda-z ‘You brought.’ t-œz-met ‘You shall bring.’ 2 pers. plur. met-eda-z-chi ‘You brought.’ t-œz-met-chi ‘You shall bring.’ 3 pers. sing. met-eda-ng ‘He brought.’ t-œng-met ‘He shall bring.’ 3 pers. plur. met-ed-œn-ang ‘They brought.’ t-œng-met-œn ‘They shall bring.’

Another paradigm which may be formed synthetically is the desiderative. It is formed by inserting -ma- between the root and the personal reference markers, as in met-ma-i˜n ‘may I bring!’ As an alternative, Middendorf mentions an analytic construction with the element mang indicating desiderative, which is used in the same position as the elements e, fe and ang (see above); e.g. moi˜n mang tem ‘may I love!’ The imperative ending for second person is -an (plural -an-chi). When the verb root ends in a vowel (e.g. xllipco/’ipko ‘to call’), the ending is -n (xllipco-n/’ipko-n).

(272) met-an mullu bring-2S.IM egg ‘Bring eggs!’ (Middendorf 1892: 149) (273) met-an-chi pei bring-2.IM-PL grass ‘Bring (plural) grass!’ (Middendorf 1892: 150)

It is also possible to locate an element an before the verb root. The resulting construc- tion has an imperative meaning and can be translated as ‘Come and ...!’ (274). Although this preverbal element an has been interpreted as an instance of the imperative marker (Middendorf 1892: 140), there seems to be no reason to assume that the two markers an share a common origin. As a matter of fact, an is also found before the so-called ‘supine’ ending in -(V)d (see below). In that case the interpretation of the resulting construction is ‘Go and ...!’ (275).

(274) an funo 2S.IM eat ‘Come and eat!’ (Villareal 1921: 105) (275) an funo-d 2S.IM eat-SP ‘Go and eat!’ (Villareal 1921: 103) 338 3 The Inca Sphere

The adverbial elements ca/ka and pi˜n can be postponed to a verb form, either alone or in combination, in order to add additional shades of tense. The element pi˜n indicates transposition of an event to the past (276), whereas ca indicates directedness towards the future (277).

(276) met-ei˜npi˜n met-eda-ix pi˜n bring-1S.SG PA bring-PA-1S.PL PA ‘I was bringing.’ ‘We had brought.’ (Villareal 1921: 51) (277) chi-da-i˜nca be-PA-1S.SG F ‘I would have been.’ (Altieri 1939: 31)

The adverbial element chœm/ch¨am indicates obligation (278). It must not be con- founded with the affix -cɥœm/-´ch¨am,which is said to indicate progressive aspect in combination with polite respect, as illustrated in (279).

(278) chi-jx chœm135 be-1S.PL OB ‘We must be.’ (Altieri 1939: 30) (279) ciad-a-cɥœm-ang136 sleep-EU-PR.CS-3S ‘You are asleep.’ (Villareal 1921: 90)

The passive is formed morphologically by adding to the verb root either one of the suffixes -œr/-¨ar∼ -er or -œm/-¨am ∼ -em.With non-derived verb bases both endings are used indistinctly, although -Vr is usually presented as the first option.137 Passive verbs are conjugated as any other verb. The choice of the vowel appears to be free, although the ‘impure’ vowel is preferred when the passive suffix occurs in word-final position, e.g. in (281).

(280) zoc-œrr-ei˜n pong-er tœp-œr-ei˜n lactu-ng-er throw-PS-1S.SG stone-IS beat-PS-1S.SG hide-EU-IS ‘They throw at me with stones and beat me with hides.’ (lit.: ‘I am being thrown at with stones and beaten with hides.’)138

135 The sequence ijx is an orthographic variant of iix. 136 In this example a euphonic vowel (copying the root vowel) is inserted. 137 A further alternative is -(V)p,asinai-ep ‘to be made’. 138 This example sentence was left untranslated by Carrera Daza and considered untranslatable by Villareal (1921: 98). It could be interpreted with the help of the verb lexicon in Middendorf (1892: 102). There is no ready explanation for the semantic question involved by ‘beating with hides’. Possibly, a leather whip was meant. 3.4 The Mochica language 339

(281) mœi˜nemet-œr ca lena pei˜n pol-er mœi˜n sson¨ang I.G be bring-PS F along good heart139-IS I.G wife ‘I would be pleased to bring along my wife.’ (lit.: ‘By me would be brought along with pleasure my wife.’) (Villareal 1921: 98)

Verbal derivational morphology is weakly developed in Mochica. However, at least two suffixes appear to be productive, ‘transitiviser’-co-/-ko- and ‘applicative’ -c-/-k- (also -ec-/-ek- or -œc-/-¨ak-). The transitiviser, which may or may not have a causative interpretation, is often found in combination with passive, in which case the resulting portmanteau marker is -quem-/-kem-.

(282) fai˜n-ko lie-T ‘to cheat someone’ (Middendorf 1892: 148) (283) funo-kem-ei˜n eat-T.PS-1S.SG ‘I am being fed.’ (Middendorf 1892: 148)

The applicative suffix may cause ablaut in a root to which it is attached, as in the case of met ‘to bring’.

(284) mit-c-an moi˜n xllac bring-AP-IM.2S I fish ‘Bring me some fish!’ (Villareal 1921: 30) (285) xllipqu-ec-an mœi˜n eiz call-AP-IM.2S I.G son ‘Call my son for me!’ (Villareal 1921: 30)

Nominalisations in Mochica include an agentive, a stative and an instrumental nom- inalisation, as well as an abstract verbal noun. The agentive is formed by the addition of the affixes -(V)pœc/-(V)p¨ak. The connective initial vowel of the suffix appears after consonant-final stems. In Carrera it is a (286), less frequently œ (especially in roots with a suffix extension). Middendorf (1892: 141) provides a more complex picture including cases of harmony between the root vowel and the connective vowel (287a), as well as absence of the latter (287b).

139 The form pol-er is derived from pol-quic/pol-kik ‘heart’ with elimination of the absolute affix -quic/-kik. 340 3 The Inca Sphere

(286) a. fel ‘sit’ fil-apœc ‘one who sits’ (Villareal 1921: 22) b. ai ‘make’ ai-apoec ‘the creator’ (Villareal 1921: 9) (287) a. pui ‘ascend’ pui-up¨ak ‘one who ascends’ (Middendorf 1892: 140) b. fol ‘breed’ fol-p¨ak ‘one who breeds’ (Middendorf 1892: 140)

The agentive nominalisation is frequently followed by an affix -o,which may be the same as the one found with adjectives (see above). The resulting form is interpreted as ‘being in the habit of ...ing’ and functions simultaneously as a verb stem. The main vowelofthe agentive suffix can then be suppressed:

(288) ai-ap¨ak-o ‘in the habit of making’ (Middendorf 1892: 113) ai-ap(¨a)k-o-i˜n ‘I am in the habit of making.’ (Middendorf 1892: 113)

Forms resulting from stative nominalisation, usually called ‘participles’ in the lit- erature, refer to accomplished events. They have passive meaning when the verb base is transitive but active meaning when it is intransitive. Stative nominalisation is indicated by the ending -(V)d-o. Its connective initial vowel is found after conso- nants and tends to harmonise with the root vowel, although there are several cases where such harmony is not found. No harmony is observed in roots with an inter- nal vowel i,where the connective vowel can be either a or œ/a¨. Middendorf (1892: 142) points to the fact that stative participles are formally related to the preterit stem (ending -(V)d-a, see above), where he finds a similar inconsistency in the choice of the connective vowel. As a matter of fact, the final vowel of the preterit end- ing -(V)d-a- is often replaced by o (289). The articulated character of the ending -(V)d-o is shown by the fact that a plural marker can be inserted between the two components (290).

(289) met-ed.o met-ed.a-i˜n ∼ met-ed.o-i˜n bring-SN bring-PA-1S.SG ‘brought’ ‘I brought.’ (Villareal 1921: 52–3) (290) j˚um-¨ad-¨an-o die-SN-PL-SN ‘those who have died’ (Middendorf 1892: 144)

Stative participles can be used in combination with verbs ‘to be’ in order to indicate an accomplished event. The homophony (and possible identity) of the participle and preterit forms can lead to ambiguity in the interpretation of such constructions in relation to periphrastic verb forms. With transitive verb stems, a periphrastic construction will be interpreted as active if the verb is in the preterit, whereas it will be passive if the verb is in its participle form. 3.4 The Mochica language 341

(291) moi˜netem-ed.o moi˜netem-ed.o Ibelove-PA I be love-SN ‘I have loved.’ ‘I have been loved.’ (Middendorf 1892: 136)

Stative participles play an important role in the formation of relative clauses. Carrera Daza mentions sentence (292) as an example of how relative clause constructions should look like in Mochica.

(292) œnta-zta f(e) queix Limac tœ-d.ˆo˜nofœn not-NE be return Lima go-SN man ‘The man who went to Lima has not yet returned.’140 (Altieri 1939: 19)

Instrumental nominalisation consists in adding a suffix -ic/-ik or -uc/-uk to a consonant- final verb root. The relational form corresponding to these nominalisations ends in -ir/-ur (cf. the case of ne˜˜ n-uc/˜ne˜n-ur ‘toy’, which was mentioned before). In some cases, both vowel options co-occur yielding different meanings (293):

(293) man-ik ‘cup’, ‘drinking-vessel’ man-uk ‘dining-room’ [from man ‘eat’, ‘drink’] (Middendorf 1892: 109)

Abstract events are referred to by forms in -i(z)¸cœc/-iss¨ak. Middendorf (1892: 110) gives examples of the use of -i(z)¸cœc/-iss¨ak both with verb roots and with adjectives followed by the affix -o and the verb chi- ‘to be’. The relational counterpart of this affix likewise ends in -r: -i(z)¸cœr/-iss¨ar.

(294) a. j˚um-iss¨ak ‘death’ from j˚um ‘die’ [<*lœm] b. t¨arr¨ak-o chi-ss¨ak ‘slowness’ from t¨arr¨ak ‘slow’ [< *tœrrœc] (295) œnta f(e) ezta i˜n aj-i¸cœr œzta mo ef-quic not be NE who.G make-N.RL NE this father-A ‘This Father is of no one’s making.’141 (Altieri 1939: 87)

Mochica is rich in non-finite subordinate verb forms, traditionally referred to as gerunds and supines. The ending -nœm/-n¨am, with occasional ablaut in the root (e.g. mit-nœm from met ‘to bring’) indicates a purpose ‘in order to’; cf. examples (245)– (246) above. The ending -(V)scœf/ -(V)sk¨af indicates an event that has been completed before the main event (‘after ...ing’); -(V)lœc/ -(V)l¨ak and -(V)ssœc/-(V)ss¨ak indicate

140 In Carrera Daza’stext the first part of this sentence is subdivided as œntaz taf queix.Itmust have incited Villareal (1921: 39) to include a non-existing verb tafqueix ‘to return’ in his word list. In reality, we are dealing with a contraction of two negative markers œnta and ezta, followed by an abbreviated form of fe ‘to be’ (cf. Middendorf 1892: 117). The verb ‘to return’ is queix/keˇs (Middendorf 1892: 87). 141 I˜n is the (short) genitive of ei˜n ‘who’; aj-isanalternative way of writing for ai- ‘to make’. 342 3 The Inca Sphere simultaneousness (‘while ...ing’). Finally, -(f)uno, -(f)unta and -(f)un can indicate a negative subordination (‘without ...ing’).142

(296) mœi˜nefang lœm-œd.o, tzhang Limac chi-lœc I.G father.RL be die-SN you Lima be-GR ‘My father died while you were in Lima.’ (Villareal 1921: 102)

Particularly intriguing because of their often irregular formation and their ability to express the active–passive distinction are the supines that indicate the complement of verbs of motion (including the hortative particle an ‘go and ...!’; see above). The verb met ‘to carry’ has an active supine tet and a passive supine tinipœd/tinip¨ad. Most other verbs form their active supine in -(œ)d/-(¨a)d, -(V)p-œd/-(V)p-¨ad being a frequent option for the passive. Both the syntax and the limited choice of the postconsonantal vowel suggest that there is no close relation with the preterit and the stative participle in these cases.

(297) an tin-ip-œdnof ˜ faichca go.and bring-PS-SP we.AC firewood ‘Go and have us brought firewood!’ (Villareal 1921: 103) (298) xllon-quic ang ta tet food-A 3S come bring.SP ‘He has come to bring (you) food.’ (Altieri 1939: 60)

Mochica has a system of numeral classifiers which refer to tens and, to a lesser extent, hundreds of a specific class of objects. There are no numeral classifiers for units. The first four numerals have free forms (including genitives), as well as bound forms which are used in combination with the classifiers or as multipliers of other numerals. Even though there is a special word for ‘ten’, as shown in table 3.21, the usual way to count in tens was by combining the bound forms of the numerals (or full forms when bound forms are lacking) with a numeral classifier referring to ten units of a particular subclass of nouns. For instance, pong was used for (tens of) people, animals and reeds, and ssop for (tens of) coins or time units (day, year). The classifier cɥoquixll/choki’ was used for (tens of) fruits and ears of maize.

(299) coc-pong¸ cɥelˆu four-CL.10 hawk ‘forty hawks’ (Altieri 1939: 83) (300) na-ssop xllaxll one-CL.10 money ‘ten reales’ (Altieri 1939: 82)

142 The forms with initial f occur after o (e.g. funo-funta ‘without eating’). 3.4 The Mochica language 343

Table 3.21 Numerals 1 to 10 in Mochica (Altieri 1939: 82)

Nominative Genitive Bound

‘one’ onœc onc-œr-o na- ‘two’ aput* apt-ur-o pac- ‘three’ copœt¸ copt-œr-o ¸ coc- ¸ ‘four’ nopœt nopt-œr-o noc- ‘five’ exllmœtzh exllmœtzh-œr-o ‘six’ tzhaxlltzha tzhaxlltzha-ng-o ‘seven’ nite˜ nite-ng-o ˜ ‘eight’ langœss langœss-œr-o ‘nine’ tap tap-œi-o ‘ten’ ciœc¸ ɥ ciœc¸ ɥ-œi-o

* The Altieri edition mentions the form atput (genitive apt-ur-o) alongside aput. All the other sources only have aput.

(301) pak-choki’ mang two-CL.10 maize ‘twenty ears of maize’ (Middendorf 1892: 130)

The word for ‘hundred’ palœc/pal¨ak could be combined with the bound forms of the numerals, yielding na-palœc ‘100’, pac-palœc ‘200’, etc. In order to count ‘hundreds of fruits or crops’ there was a special numeral classifier chiœng/chi¨ang.

(302) pak-chi¨angchun ´ two-CL.100 gourd ‘two hundred gourds’

In addition to the classifiers for tens and hundreds there are also classifiers for pairs. The classifier luc/luk was used for counting fruits and crops, whereas felœp/fel¨ap was used for domestic fowl and vessels. The word cœss was recorded by Carrera Daza as a classifier for counting time in tens of days, e.g. exllmœtzh cœss ‘fifty days’ (Altieri 1939: 84). In Middendorf’s time the word k¨ass apparently had lost its deci- mal meaning. It was still combinable with bound numerals but with the meaning of ‘day’ rather than ‘ten days’. Other lexical items referring to time, such as siˇ ‘month’ and f¯ur ‘year’, could also be combined with the bound numerals (e.g. nok-f¯ur ‘four years’). The Mochica numeral system also included a word for ‘thousand’ cunˆo/kuno. Com- plex numerals involving the addition of units to tens, tens to hundreds, etc., were con- structed by means of the connector allo, e.g. nite˜ palœc allo na-pong allo onœc ‘711’ (Altieri 1939: 83). 344 3 The Inca Sphere

3.4.3 Mochica sample texts The Mochica texts that have been preserved from the colonial period are all religious texts pertaining to Roman Catholic faith and practice. It is likely that all these texts were translated into Mochica from Latin or from Spanish, although they certainly provide a good impression of the structure of the language. A substantial corpus of such texts can be found in Carrera Daza’s grammar of 1644 (Altieri 1939), and some have been transposed into a nineteenth century version by Middendorf (1892). Middendorf also included a few short sample texts on the daily life of the Mochica people at the end of the nineteenth century. In what follows we will first present the Lord’s Prayer in Carrera Daza’s seventeenth-century version of Mochica, and subsequently a short text about fishing practices recorded by Middendorf. The Lord’s Prayer 1. mœich ef, ac az loc cu¸cia-ng-nic we.G father.RL that 2S be heaven-G-L ‘Our Father who art in heaven.’

The relativising element ac is explained by Middendorf (1892: 105) as a form of the verb ac/ak ‘to look’, which he associates with the habit of the Mochica people to introduce sentences with the word ak-an ‘(now) look!’ However, since ac is followed by the second-person subject marker -az,wemust conclude that ac has become part of the clause and that it functions as a relative clause marker.

2. tzhœng oc mang lic-œm mœcha you.G name.RL be.DE make.PS holy ‘Hallowed be thy name.’

The noun oc/ok¯ must be in its relational form, which apparently is identical to the absolute form (if such a form indeed exists). The expression lic mœcha means ‘to worship’ (Villareal 1921: 26).143

3. piyc-annof ˜ tzhœng cu¸cia-s give-2S.IM we.AC you.G heaven-RL ‘Thy kingdom come.’

The Mochica text literally says: ‘Give us your heaven!’

4. ei-œp-ma-ng tzhœng pol-œng mœn do-PS-DE-3S you.G will-RL as ‘Thy will be done.’

143 The Quechua verb muˇca- ‘to worship’, ‘to kiss’ is probably related to mœcha; the direction of borrowing may have been either way. 3.4 The Mochica language 345

The verb ei-œp is a variant of ai-ep, the passive of ai ‘to make’.

5. mo œiz-i capœc cu¸cia-ng-nic mœn this earth-G on.top.of heaven-G-L as ‘On earth as it is in heaven.’ 6. aio in- in-eng-ˆo mœich xllon piyc-annof ˜ allˆo mo-lun that when-G when-G-AJ we.G food.RL give-2S.IM we.AC also this-day ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’

The form in is an interrogative root meaning ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘which’. The expression in-eng in-eng-o is translated as ‘habitual’ in Middendorf’s translation of the Prayer. The form xllon/’on is the relational form of xllon-quic/’on-kik ‘food’.

7. efqu-ec-annof ˜ ixll-œss forgive-AP-2S.IM we.AC sin-RL ‘And forgive us our trespasses.’

The verb efco/efko is glossed as ‘to save’, ‘to free’ by Middendorf; -co may be the transitivising suffix. The suffix -œss may be the same as the one used with adjectives to form abstract relational nouns (cf. pe˜n, pe˜n-œss).

8. aie acan aix efco xllangmu-ss-ei-o mœich,cio ¸ mœn like that 1S.PL free enemy-RL-G-AJ we that like ‘Asweforgive those who trespass against us.’

The expression aie kan is discussed in Middendorf (1892: 159); it means ‘in the same way as ...’; the element kan is frequently used to introduce correlative constructions. In sentence 8 acan also has a correlative function, in which it interacts with cio¸ . The initial vowel in acan may be due to interference with the verb ac/ak ‘to look’; cf. sentence 1. The element aix is a variant of the personal reference marker eix. The form xllangmu-ss-ei-o can be translated as ‘those (the sins) of our enemies’.

9. amoz tocœnnof ˜ xllangmu-ss-e mœllœc-zœr-e-nic nam-nœm do.not let we.AC enemy-RL-G talk-N.RL-G-L fall-F.SP ‘And lead us not into temptation.’

The negative adverb amoz/amoss is used in negative imperatives, in which case the verb that follows has no imperative ending -an. The verb tocœn ‘to let’ is listed as tokn by Middendorf (1892: 90). The verb mœllœc ‘to talk’, ‘to reason’ is listed as muillk, m˚ullk and m¨all¨ak (Middendorf 1892: 88, 162). The ending -(i)zœr/-iss¨ar indicates an abstract deverbal noun in its relational form. A literal translation would be: ‘Do not let 346 3 The Inca Sphere us fall into the enemy’s talk!’

10. lecɥna-n efconof ˜ piss-i-nqu-ich rather-LS free-2S.IM we.AC bad-G-L-AB ‘But deliver us from evil.’

The word lecɥna/jechna ‘more’ (cf. lecɥ /jech ‘head’) is used as a modifier with adjectives. The form in -n (lecɥna-n)may have been used in an adverbal function, since it conveys the meaning of ‘rather’. The verb efco may be read as efco-n,where -n is the postvocalic imperative marker.144 The analysis of the form pissinquich ‘(to free) from evil’ is problematic. It contains the root piss ‘bad’ and the ablative marker -ich. The intervening element has been interpreted as -ing- (cf. Middendorf 1892: 172), in a possible parallelism with another form, i’i-ng-ich ‘(to free) from sin’ mentioned by the same author (p. 168). Nevertheless, the form pissinquich is repeated several times in Carrera Daza’s explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, so that an error is not likely. In the same context, the expression infierno-ng-niqu-ich ‘from inside hell’ contains a sequence of the locative affix -nic and the ablative marker -ich, suggesting a similar analysis for pissinquich (from piss-i-niqu-ich with a syncopated vowel); the element -i- preceding -n(i)c may represent a genitive case marker. Middendorf himself is in doubt as elsewhere he transcribes the form in question as piss¨an-k-ich (p. 105) without further explanation.

A conversation about fishing (Middendorf 1892: 186–7) 1. amoch kotsk-¨ad ssi¯aj, m¯ach-n¨am ’ak let.us.go throw-SP fishing-net catch-F.SP fish ‘Let us go and throw out the net, in order to catch fish!’

The form amoch is a defective verb with the meaning ‘let us do/go’. Its complement is expressed by the supine of the following verb. The verb k˚utsk ‘to send’, ‘to throw’ (<*cœtzhc-)isrecorded in Middendorf’sverb list (1892: 86–91). A verb m¯a´ch ‘to seize’, ‘to catch’ is also recorded in that list.

2. m¨an ang chi oˇs ’ak here 3S be many fish ‘There is a lot of fish here.’ 3. tarr siet-an ang chin¯ ˜ass ssi´ofe more far-DG 3S be nice that be ‘Further away that is where the best place is.’

144 Alternatively, one may interpret the final -n in lecɥna-n as a cliticised imperative marker an. Whether or not this is a realistic interpretation requires further research. 3.4 The Mochica language 347

We tentatively analyse the suffix -an as an adverbial degree marker.

4. ts´ak-an ssi¯ajni-nek ˜ carry-2S.IM net sea-L ‘Carry the net into the sea!’

The verb ‘to carry’ is listed as tsak (<*tzhac-)inMiddendorf’s verb list. The post- position nek is a variant of nik ‘in’, ‘into’; a genitive stem marker is lacking in the word for ‘sea’ ni˜ .

5. pok-an tarr siet-an ni-ng-nek enter-IM.2S more far-DG sea-G-L ‘Go further into the water!’

The word ni translated as ‘water’ is probably the same as ni˜ ‘sea’.

6. minanta ¨ ang m¯ach-¨ar ’ak here not 3S catch-PS fish ‘Fish cannot be caught here.’ 7. m¨an ang chi kochkoch here 3S be seaweed ‘There is seaweed here.’ 8. akop t¨ak-p-ang ssi¯aj already withhold-PS-3S net ‘The net is being withheld.’

The adverb ak means ‘already’; akop appears to have the same meaning. The verb t¨ak-p could not be found in the word lists; because of its shape it appears to be a passive, and so it is translated by Middendorf; the verb t˚uk ‘to go’ does not fit this context.

9. orronch-an ssi¯aj pull.out-2S.IM net ‘Pull out the net!’

The verb ‘to pull’ is recorded as orrnch in Middendorf’s verb list.

10. m¯ach-an mo sop catch-2S.IM this knot ‘Get hold of this knot!’ 11. ’tan lok esta tuij-u-n¨am not want NE come.out-EU-F.SU ‘It (the net) does not want to move.’ 348 3 The Inca Sphere

The verb tui’ (from *tuxll) ‘to come out’ is recorded in Middendorf’s verb list. The second u in this verb form is a euphonic extension of the root. The elements tan and esta are both part of the negation. The apostrophe in ’tan suggests that Middendorf considers this form to be an abbreviated variant of the negative adverb anta¨ . The verb lok ‘to want’ lacks a third-person subject marker here; its complement is indicated by the future supine in -n¨am.

12. amoch orronch-¨ad isk-¨ar-tot-¨an let.us.go/do pull.out-SU all-G-with-PL ‘Let us pull all together!’

The form isk-isfrom iss¨ak (<*iz¸cœc) ‘all’, genitive issk-¨ar-¯o. The marker -tot indi- cates ‘in combination with’, ‘in the company of’, ‘with’. Normally, it does not follow a genitive stem (Middendorf 1892: 98).

13. akop tuij-m-ang ssi¯aj already come.out-VE-3S net ‘The net is already out.’

The verb tuij is the same as tui’; see sentence 11. The analysis of the verb form is problematic because it contains an unexplained derivational affix -m(e)-,which is also found elsewhere in the same text (Middendorf 1892: 187): tuij-me-ko-n¨am ‘in order to make (the blood) come out’.

14. mokats (mukaits) mo ’ak-¨an take this fish-PL ‘Take these fish!’

The verb mokats or mukaits (<*mucaitzh, Altieri 1939: 44) is a defective imperative form with the meaning ‘take!’

15. amoss nam-ko uij-e kap¨ak do.not fall-T earth-G upon ‘Do not drop them on the ground!’

According to Middendorf (1892: 63), the genitive of the noun uij is uij-¨ar-´o,145 not *uij-ei-¯o;however, a genitive interpretation seems to be the only one possible. From a historical point of view, the word uij (<*œiz) ‘earth’, ‘dust’ is remarkable because of the change *z > j,which is not attested elsewhere. Apart from Middendorf, all published sources, including Lehmann, recorded a sibilant in this form.

145 The notation -o´ is clearly equivalent to -¯o. 3.4 The Mochica language 349

16. chimpo-n sop mov, ma-n¨am m¨aich take-2S.IM three corvina146, eat-SU we ‘Take three corvinas for us to eat!’

Middendorf’s verb list contains a verb chimp ‘to take’; also chinp ‘to lay apart’, ‘to separate’; the form in the text suggests that the element -o was part of the root. Sop is a short form for sop¨at ‘three’. Ma-n¨am is the future supine of man ‘to eat, drink’ (also man-an¨am).

17. llollek ’ak t-¯ıˇseiˇs poj other fish F-1S.PL1S.PL sell ‘The other fish we shall sell.’

The verb poj (<*pol) means ‘to sell’; the sentence apparently contains double personal reference marking in a future construction (t-iˇs-poj).

18. i˜nei˜n lok ma-n¨am ’ak whowho want eat-SU fish ‘Who wants to eat fish?’

The repetition of the interrogative pronoun (e)i˜n ‘who’ indicates a plural. As in sentence 11 the verb lok lacks a third-person subject marker.

19. chuken e toijni-ng-e-nek-ich ˜ just.now be come.out sea-G-EU-L-AB ‘They have just now come out of the sea.’

The verb toij is the same as tui’; see 11–13. The first vowel e in ni-ng-e-nek-ich˜ can only be a euphonic extension.

20. chipan chi-ng siam still be-3S alive ‘They are still alive.’

In this sentence chi ‘to be’ is used as an auxiliary with the root siam ‘to live’.

21. kˇotsk-an ja ’ak kap¨ak, tem ang j˚umanta ¨ throw-2S.IM water fish on.top.of, so.that 3S die not ‘Throw water upon the fish, so they will not die!’

The form k˘otsk is an orthographic variant of kotsk / k˚utsk (see also the first sentence of this text). A genitive stem marker is lacking before kap¨ak. The root tem (from tem

146 Corvina:atype of fish popular in Peru (Sciaena gilberti). In one of Middendorf’s word lists m¯ov is listed as cachema fish (Cynoscion analis). 350 3 The Inca Sphere

‘to love’, ‘to ask for’) is used as a conjunction in combination with the negative marker anta¨ .

22. amoss tokan ’ang-nek do.not leave sun-L ‘Do not leave them in the sun!’

A genitive marker is lacking here before -nek;acommon alternative is the expression ’ang-ik ‘in the sun’.

3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya In spite of the fact that Puquina was recognised as a ‘general language’ during the initial part of the colonial period, it rapidly became extinct without being adequately documented. The Puquina linguistic area covered a relatively large but fragmented ter- ritory, exposing the main reason for its decline. Successive invasions, in particular of Aymara-speaking peoples, had broken the unity of the Puquina nation long before the Spaniards reached Peru. In the first half of the fifteenth century the most important Puquina-speaking group were the Colla, who had their centre of power west of Lake Titicaca in the present-day . During their expansion, the Incas subju- gated the Colla, who fiercely resisted submission. The chronicler Cabello Valboa (1586) relates how the Incas sealed their victory as the Colla king Colla Capac was taken to Cuzco and sacrificed to the Sun (cf. Torero 1987). Afterwards, a series of new rebellions weakened the position of the Colla even further. Our knowledge of the distribution of the Puquina-speaking peoples is based on two sources of information: toponymy and colonial documents. Torero (1987) concludes that the Puquina language was predominant in three areas: (i) the altiplano and mountains surrounding Lake Titicaca, with the exception of its Aymara-speaking southwestern shore; this area includes Charazani, home of the Callahuaya practitioners of traditional medicine, who conserve a professional language with a Puquina lexical basis, and two of the principal islands of the lake, Amantan´ı and Taquile; (ii) the region between Arequipa and Tacna on the Pacific side of southern Peru (the area of the historical Coli people); and (iii) an area in the Bolivian highlands situated between the towns of Sucre and Potos´ı. There are indications, however, that the Puquina were cosmopolitan enough not to remain confined to these areas. The colonial church at Andahuaylillas, not far from Cuzco, contains a multilingual wall inscription in five languages, one of which is Puquina. It is not sure when the Puquina language eventually disappeared. The last mentions of its existence date from the years shortly before the independence of Peru and concern the area east of Arequipa. This is also the region where the Puquina toponymy is most conspicuous: place names ending in -baya, -coa and -laque (e.g. Socabaya, Calacoa, 3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 351

Matalaque) are diagnostic of Puquina presence. Interestingly, the mountainous interior of the department of Moquegua today harbours an Aymara-, a Quechua- and a Spanish- speaking area. All three have predominant Puquina toponymy. The only grammar of Puquina known to have existed was that of Alonso de Barzana of 1590. Unfortunately, it has not survived. The principal source for the language is a religious text, Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum, published in Naples by Ger´onimo de Or´e (1607). It contains prayers, instructions for confession and catechisms in Quechua, Aymara, Puquina, Guaran´ı and Mochica. A first analysis of the Puquina material was made by de la Grasserie (1894), who published a vocabulary, grammatical notes and transcribed texts. A second attempt is Torero’sunpublished doctoral dissertation of 1965. Avocabulary and a historical study of the Puquina language have appeared in Torero (1987), some grammatical notes and comparative remarks in Torero (1992). Most of the analytic observations on Puquina in this section have been inspired by Torero’s work.147 A comparison with the Callahuaya language makes it clear that Puquina must have been subdivided into rather divergent local varieties. One such dialect provided the basis for most of the lexicon of Callahuaya, its morphology being derived from that of the surrounding Quechua. The variety underlying the Callahuaya lexicon was certainly not the Puquina known to Or´ebut rather a sister dialect of it. For instance, whereas many Puquina words begin with a consonant cluster consisting of s followed by a stop, the corresponding Callahuaya words do not exhibit that initial s,asinPuquina sper ‘four’, Callahuaya pily; Puquina scana ‘silver’, Callahuaya qena.Inother cases, the two lan- guages may have been more similar than the sources suggest. Present-day Callahuaya distinguishes between velar and uvular articulation positions, and has a contrast be- tween plain, aspirated and glottalised stops. Although Or´e’s material is ambiguous in this respect, it is probable that the variety of Puquina with which he was familiar knew such distinctions too. There are several spellings suggesting the existence of differ- ent stops and fricatives in the velar–uvular area, e.g. , , , , , , . Even though the distinction between the front vowels e and i, and between the back vowels o and u may not have had a heavy functional load, there is reason to assume that these contrasts were distinctive, as is illustrated by se e [seʔe] ‘heart’ versus sipi- ‘to beat’, and so ‘two’ versus suma- (∼cuma-¸ ) ‘to live’. Cases such as se e (∼sehe, ∼see) ‘heart’, gui in ‘like’, and qui illa- ‘to think’ suggest the presence of an intervocalic glottal stop. Consonant clusters of two consonants in initial and final position, and of three consonants in word-internal position occur, but the pronunciation of such sequences

147 Torero (2002) contains a detailed analysis of Puquina, which became available after the com- pletion of this chapter. 352 3 The Inca Sphere

(e.g. mocsca- ‘to bring together’) is open to different interpretations. Nasal consonants sometimes occur after a consonant in word-final position, either suggesting a vocalic realisation, or the presence of an unwritten schwa-type vowel. This can be the case when the instrumental case suffix -m ‘with’ or a rare genitive suffix -n (only attested in Dios-n Yglesia ‘God’s Church’) are added to a base ending in a consonant.148 The stops k (/) and p tend to become voiced (or even reduced to an approximant [w] in the latter case) in intervocalic position, as will be illustrated in some of the examples that follow. The fact that in some lexical items either only ,oronly occur in initial position leaves open the possibility that there may have been two distinct sibilants ([s], [ˇs]) as in seventeenth-century Cuzco Quechua.149 For the remainder, the sound inventory of Puquina may have been similar to that of Aymara and Quechua. Not surprisingly, the Puquina lexicon contains several borrowings from both these languages. Some of the borrowed items underwent important phonological adaptations, e.g. Puquina macu [maku] ‘king’, Aymara malyku, and Puquina suca [suka] ‘youngest’, Aymara sulyka, Cuzco Quechua sulyk’a.However, in other cases of lexical similar- ity Puquina may have been the source language, as in Aymara layqa ‘witch’ from Puquina reega (Callahuaya reqa ‘cat’, ‘witch’). The Aymara interrogative stem khiti ‘who’, which is absent from the sister language Jaqaru, is reminiscent of Callahuaya khi:‘what’ (Puquina qui-) and Callahuaya ki, khiru ‘who’. (The element -ti could be associated with the Aymara negative marker.) From a morphosyntactic point of view the Puquina language is somewhat different from the surrounding Andean languages. Although the main morphological device of the language is suffixation, there is a set of possessive pronominal elements which are confined to a position before the head noun. These elements are free forms, rather than prefixes, because they may be separated from the noun by an adjective, as in (303) and (304):

(303) no atot hucha-nch [Aymara, Quechua hucha ‘guilt’] 1P.SG great sin-DV ‘It is my great sin.’ (Or´e 1607: 164) (304) po coma hucha 2P all sin ‘all your sins’ (Or´e 1607: 164)

148 The normal genitive construction is by juxtaposition following the order modifier–modified. The two parts of the construction are optionally separated by a possessive pronoun chu ‘his/her/its’ (Torero 1994a). 149 In contradistinction to the transcription of other Andean languages, such as Muisca, Mochica, Chol´on and Allentiac, the (infrequent) symbol clearly did not refer to [ˇs] in Puquina (cf. Torero 1995). 3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 353

Table 3.22 Puquina personal and possessive pronouns

Personal pronouns Possessive pronouns

1 pers. sing. ni no 2 pers. pi po 3 pers. chu chu 1 pers. plur. se˜nse˜n

However, with some adjectives the reverse occurs (305):

(305) puta po hucha sisqu-eno Dios all 2P sin know-AG God ‘God, who knows all your sins’ (Or´e 1607: 167)

Personal and possessive pronouns in Puquina are reminiscent of the prefixes used for personal reference in most of the Arawakan languages. This is one of the main reasons why Puquina has occasionally been presented as genetically related to Arawakan, the lexical similarities being very limited (cf. Torero 1992). Table 3.22 shows the personal and possessive pronouns of Puquina. The pronouns for first person singular, second and third person can be compared to the personal reference prefixes in Arawakan languages. For instance, in I˜napari (Madre de Dios, southeastern Peru) the singular personal reference prefixes nu-, pi- and ru- indicate first, second person singular and third person feminine, respectively (Parker 1995). Person of subject and object are indicated in the suffix part of the verb form in a system of transitions typologically reminiscent of Aymara and Quechua. In the examples (306) and (307) a first- and a second-person subject are indicated by means of the suffixes -qu(i) ∼ -gu(i) and -p(i) ∼ -u(i)- ∼ -v(i), respectively.

(306) ni-ch baptiza-gu-ench yqui-m chuscu-m Spiritu.sancto-m men-`ut I-E baptise-1S.SG-DV father-CO son-CO holy.spirit-CO name-L ‘I baptise (you) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.’ (Or´e 1987: 37) (307) qui˜n too-pi, raago aya-y inque atago aya-y what150 bring-2S man child-IR or woman child-IR ‘What do you bring (to the church), a boy or a girl?’ (Or´e 1607: 69)

150 The interrogative stem ‘what’ is generally found as qui˜n when used independently. In combi- nations it is qui-; e.g. quigui ‘how’. 354 3 The Inca Sphere

The addition of a suffix -s- before the subject marker generates an inverse relation in which the original subject marker refers to an object and the actor becomes third person:

(308) apa pampacha-gue-s-p-anch [Quechua pampaˇca- ‘to forgive’] not forgive-F-I-2O-DV ‘He will definitely not forgive you.’ (Or´e 1607: 167) (309) patero-s cha-que-s-c-anch father-E scold-F-I-1O.SG-DV ‘The Father will scold me. ‘ (Or´e 1607: 167)

As in Quechua, a special first-person subject ending obtains in the future tense: -(gui-)na:

(310) ni-cha co apa qui.illa-su ata-gui-na I-E this not think-SN ask-F-1S.SG.F ‘I will ask you about what you have not thought of.’ (Or´e 1607: 167)

The imperative mood has endings -ta for second- person and -anta for third-person subject; the transition of a second-person subject with a first-person object has the ending -suma:

(311) ama scalli-ta [Quechua ama ‘do not’] do.not be.afraid-2S.IM ‘Do not be afraid!’ (Or´e 1607: 167) (312) Dios huacaycha-s-p-anta [Quechua waqayˇca- ‘to protect’] God protect-I-2O-3S.IM ‘May God protect you!’ (Or´e 1607: 167) (313) catalla-suma no ha-r`ey151 listen-2S.1O.IM 1P.SG son-VO.MS ‘Listen to me, my son!’ (Or´e 1607: 166)

Declarative predicates are normally followed by a suffix -(a)nch or -(e)nch,asin (303), (306) and in (308)–(309). (The vowel alternation is not yet well understood.) The absence of this suffix entails an interrogative interpretation of the predicate, as can be deduced from the interaction of questions and answers in (314):

(314) cuha˜na-pi cuha˜ne-qu-ench believe-2S believe-1S.SG-DV ‘Do you believe?’ ‘I do’. (Or´e 1607: 126–7)

151 The form ha-r`ey probably contains a vocative element -re, used for addressing men; women are addressed with -ye.Amore regular alternative for ha-r`ey is haya-re (Or´e 1607: 173). 3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 355

Number is indicated in the verb form, as can been seen in (315) and (316):

(315) qui˜n hata-i Yglesia-huananac what want-3S Church-AB ‘What does he/she want from the Church?’ (Or´e 1607: 69) (316) qui˜n hata-nu-y Yglesia-huananac what want-PL-3S Church-AB ‘What do they want from the Church?’ (Or´e 1607: 70)

The use of derivational suffixes, in the case of the causative, can be illustrated by pairs such as halla- ‘to die’ and halla-na- ‘to kill’ (de la Grasserie 1894: 9, 16); yti- ‘to receive’ and yt-na- ‘to hand over’ (Or´e 1607: 223). The most frequent nominalisations are characterised by the suffixes -(s)so∼-(s)su ‘stative participle’ (310) (317), -no ‘infinitive’ (318), and -eno (with suppression of a previous non-high vowel) ‘agentive’ (319).

(317) no hucha pampacha-sso asch-anta 1P.SG sin forgive-SN be-3S.IM ‘Let my sins be forgiven!’ (Or´e 1607: 127) (318) vi˜nayacuma-no ¸ [Aymara wi˜naya ‘eternal’] eternal live-IF ‘eternal life’ (Or´e 1607: 70) (319) regah coa uppall-eno me˜n chat-eno-ui Padre yna Visitador yna witch idol worship-AG man denounce-AG-2S Father either Visitador or ‘Have you denounced the witch and the idolater to the Father or to the Visitador?’ (Or´e 1607: 172)

In sentence (319) there may be two instances of the agentive morpheme. As illustrated in chatenoui (from chata- ‘to denounce’, ‘to accuse’; Aymara and Quechua c’ata-ˇ ), the second-person subject affix in its form -ui [wi] is often found attached to what is formally an agentive nominalisation. Tentatively, this form may be interpreted as a habitual past, or a general preterit. The gloss ‘either ...or ...’ for yna is a context-bound translation; if it is correct, the expected case marker must have been suppressed. Alternatively, yna may itself be interpreted as a case marker (-na is ‘locative case’). Subordination with identical subjects is frequently indicated by a suffix -tahua (or -rahua), as in (320). (The example suggests vowel suppression before the reflexive suffix -sca-,assooften occurs in the Aymaran languages; cf. section 3.3.4).

(320) ca po sehe sip-sca-tahua a-ta now 2P heart beat-RF-SU.SS say-2S.IM ‘Now say, while beating yourself on the breast: ...!’ (Or´e 1607: 127) 356 3 The Inca Sphere

Puquina has a rich system of case markers, consisting of suffixes and postpositions, some of which can be combined. The direct object is not marked for case, but the language has an marker -s (∼ -sa), which is attached to a noun or a pronoun referring to the actor of a transitive construction (321).

(321) nu-s˜ baptiza-s-pi who-E baptise-I-2O ‘Who baptised you?’ (Or´e 1607: 167)

The examples (306) and (309)–(310) contain further instances of ergative construc- tions. However, the ergative marker found in (306) and (310) is -ch(a), rather than -s, and the two may not have exactly the same function. Torero (1987: 358) analyses -ch as a marker of a second-person object encoded in a combination with a first-person subject. A suffix -ch also marks ablative case, which could provide yet another interpretation for these cases.

(322) po caru-ch pacari-eno Iesus po haya coha-na-ssuma [Quechua paqari- ‘to appear’] 2P womb-AB appear-AG Jesus 2P son see-CA-2S.1O.IM ‘Show us to your son Jesus, who came forth from your womb!’ (Or´e 1607: 401)

Other frequent case markers are -m ‘instrumental–comitative’, ‘coordinative’ (306), -(u)t ‘locative’ (306), -na ‘locative’, -guta ‘allative’ and -gua ‘benefactive’. The plural of nouns is marked with -gata or -cuna (from Quechua -kuna). Topics can be emphasised with -ghe or -x (possibly the same suffix), indefiniteness and concatenation (‘also’, ‘too’) with -hamp. The existence of the Callahuaya language has been attested in the area surrounding the town of Charazani in the province of Bautista Saavedra (department of La Paz). Girault (1984: 24) mentions Curva, Chajaya and Khanlaya as communities where the language is used. A different name for the language is Machaj juyay [maˇc’ax huyay] ‘language of the fellow-countrymen’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968). Callahuaya is not used for daily communication but in curing rituals by professionally trained healers. These healers are Quechua speakers but master the Callahuaya language as a second language in the context of their training. By tradition, only male Callahuaya can become healers, and there are no indications that the language was ever used as anyone’s mother tongue. Only a few older healers still know how to speak it (Muysken 1997b: 428). There is an extensive ethnographic literature on the Callahuaya people and their curing practices (Bastien 1978; Girault 1984; R¨osing 1990). Among the authors that have supplied extensive information on the Callahuaya lexicon in particular we may mention Oblitas Poblete (1968), Girault (1989) and Aguil´o (1991). Observations on Callahuaya phonology and grammar can be found in Stark (1972b) and in Muysken (1997b). 3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 357

The main characteristic of Callahuaya stressed in literature is the fact that it combines Quechua morphology with a vocabulary that is predominantly Puquina. The following two examples cited in Muysken (1997b: 431) illustrate this:

(323) c’ana-ˇˇ ci-rqa-yki isna-pu-na-yki-pax call-CA-PA-1S.2O go-RS-FN-2S-B ‘I had you called so that you can go.’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 44) (324) mi:-qa lyalyioxa-ku-x-mi aˇca-n human.being-TO well eat-RF-AG-AF be-3S ‘The man is a very greedy eater.’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 40)

In (323) and (324) all the suffixes are from Quechua (cf. section 3.2.6 ). In contrast, the roots can be associated with lexical items found in Puquina (Torero 1987): c’ana-ˇ ‘to call’, ‘to shout’ (Puquina cha-); isna- ‘to go’ (Puquina es-); mi: ‘human being’ (Puquina me˜n, mi˜n); oxa- ‘to eat’ (Puquina occa-, oxa-, uxa-); aˇca- ‘to be’ (Puquina ascha-, acha-). The only remaining root lyalyi is reminiscent of Quechua alyi(n) ‘good’. Stark (1972b: 206) reports that in a basic vocabulary list of 200 words, 70 per cent of the vocabulary is from Puquina, 14 per cent from Quechua, 14 per cent from Aymara and 2 per cent from Uru–Chipaya. In a less selective perspective, many Callahuaya lexical items are not relatable to any of these languages. A Tacanan influx has been suggested (Muysken 1997b), but even then there are items that remain unaccounted for. It should be emphasised that only a fraction of the Puquina lexicon is known, so that possible similarities with Callahuaya are inevitably missed. Alb´o (1989) observes that Callahuaya has native terms for several objects and animals that were introduced through contact with the Spaniards, a situation not normally found in the other Andean languages. The replacement of common words, even if of foreign origin, underscores the character of Callahuaya as a secret professional language. When comparing Puquina and Callahuaya vocabulary items, it is difficult to detect regular sound correspondences. Words may be either the same, or formally related in a non-systematic way. Borrowed roots are sometimes extended with a (non-Quechuan) suffix of unknown function, such as -naxa,asincani-naxaˇ ‘price, measure’ (Quechua caniˇ ) and intente-naxa- ‘to understand’ (Spanish entender). This suffix also occurs in non-borrowed roots as a verbaliser (e.g. in latais-naxa- ‘to be absent’ from latais ‘absent’). The existence of suffixes such as -naxa and -sti (e.g. in phoqo-sti ‘white’, cf. phoqo ‘ripe’, ‘full’) suggests that not all pre-Quechuan morphology has been replaced. The formal basis of Callahuaya morphology takes its origin in the variety of Quechua spoken in the provinces of Bautista Saavedra and Mu˜necas. It is defined as Northern Bolivian Quechua in Stark (1985b) and is more similar to Cuzco and Puno Quechua than to mainstream Bolivian Quechua. A conservative feature of this dialect is that it pre- serves syllable-final stops and affricates which have become fricatives in the surrounding 358 3 The Inca Sphere dialects. At least one verbal suffix attested in Callahuaya (-ra- ‘one by one’, cf. Stark 1972b: 211) is originally an Aymara suffix, which is also found in Puno Quechua, a Quechua variety with a powerful Aymara substratum (cf. Adelaar 1987). The data presented by the different authors, in particular Oblitas Poblete (1968) and Girault (1989), are far from identical. The discrepancies in question may reflect separate local traditions. Girault’smaterial is of particular interest because it exhibits a number of innovations in the pronominal and possessive personal reference systems (cf. Muysken 1997b). One of these innovations concerns a tendency to switch the second- and third- person markers. The other innovation consists in the presence of a separate class of possessive modifiers, which are reminiscent in function, though not in form, of the Puquina possessive modifiers. According to all sources, the second-person pronoun in Callahuaya is cuˇ :, a form which coincides with the third-person pronoun chu in Puquina, suggesting that it replaced the original second-person pronoun pi of that language. In Girault’s data the Callahuaya third-person pronoun is cuyninˇ , reflecting a combination of the stem cu:ˇ ∼ cuyˇ and the Quechua third-person possessive ending -(ni)n.For the same purpose, Oblitas’sexamples consistently feature a pronoun or demonstrative stem hiru.152 It is likely that this shift in function of the Puquina third-person pronoun may have triggered the confusion between second- and third-person endings attested in Girault’s materials. Apart from a few minor differences, the endings of the Callahuaya verbal paradigm are consistent with those of the Quechua verbal paradigm. Muysken (1997b) points at two Callahuaya sample phrases in Girault (1989: 149) where an original second-person ending -nki occurs with a third-person subject. Both, however, contain the form aˇcapunki (presumably from aˇca- ‘to be’). Additional data are needed in order to establish whether this is a regular verb form, or a form with a special (non-verbal?) status. A Callahuaya genitive construction involving two nouns is consistent with the Quechua model, which combines head and dependent marking, except that the third- person ending of a possessed substantive has a special allomorph -an occurring after consonants, which is not attested in Quechua (where it is -nin). The genitive case marker is either -pax or -x.153

(325) Petruˇcu-(pa)x atasi-n Pedro-G woman-3P ‘Pedro’s wife’ (Girault 1989: 147)

152 In addition to hiru,Oblitas Poblete also mentions the forms cuyninˇ and piˇci. The latter may reflect the Puquina second-person marker pi,inwhich case a full swap would have occurred. 153 It is not clear whether Callahuaya makes a distinction between syllable-final x (velar) and x. (uvular), as does Cuzco Quechua. Therefore, we write x everywhere. 3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 359

Table 3.23 Possessed nouns in Callahuaya (following Girault 1989: 145)

1st person 2nd person 3rd person Plain Emphatic Plain Emphatic Plain Emphatic

usi: usi:ku usin usinku usiki usikiˇci ka:ni ka:niku ka:nin ka:ninku ka:ki ka:kiˇci lyoqeni lyoqeniku lyoqenin lyoqeninku lyoqenki lyoqenkiˇci

(326) Pawluˇcu-(pa)x lyoqen-an Pablo-G bull-3P ‘Pablo’s bull’ (Girault 1989: 147)

When a noun is marked for person of possessor without being part of a genitive construction, or when it is part of a genitive construction in which the modifying element is a free pronoun, both the head and the modifier take special endings. These endings have their origin in different varieties of Quechua, but the corresponding functions do not coincide. The result is a complete split between pronominal and nominal possessive constructions. The possessive endings of Callahuaya denote person, not number. A first-person is indicated by vowel length, by -ni or by -i;asecond-person by -n,by-nin or by -in;a third-person by -ki. The endings -i and -in are found after stems ending in -n,whereas -ni and -nin are found after any other stem ending in a consonant or a long vowel. Vowel lengthening and -n are reserved for stems that end in a short vowel. The elements -ku and -ˇci, corresponding to the Quechua pluralisers -ku and -ˇcik/-ˇcis, respectively, can be added to the person markers but only for emphasis. They no longer indicate plural. The suffix -ku accompanies first- and second-person markers, whereas -ˇci is found with third-person markers. The resistance against plural marking is reminiscent of the situation in Puquina, which lacks a number distinction in possessives (except for first-person). Table 3.23 contains examples of personal reference marking with the nouns usi ‘house’, ka: ‘tooth’ and lyoqen ‘bull’. The reversal of second- and third-person markers in Callahuaya must be relatively recent, because it is not found in the Lord’sPrayer presented in Girault, nor in the version reproduced by Oblitas Poblete (1968: 33):

(327) mini:-ki wak’a-naxa-sqa aˇca-ˇcun name-2P believe-LS-SN be-3S.IM ‘Thy Name be hallowed!’ (Girault 1989: 19) 360 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.24 Personal and possessive pronouns in Callahuaya (following Girault 1989: 144–5)

Possessive pronouns Possessive pronouns Personal pronouns Set 1 Set 2

1 pers. sing. nisi nisip nisixta plur. nisinˇcex nisinˇcix 2 pers. sing. cu:ˇ cunikix ˇ cu:xta ˇ plur. cu:kunasˇ cu:kunaxta ˇ 3 pers. sing. cuyninˇ cuninku ˇ cuninkux ˇ plur. cuyninkunasˇ cuninkux ˇ

The possessive pronouns in Callahuaya are made up of non-Quechuan pronominal stems and Quechua endings. The exact composition of these forms is not regular and either reflects different stages in the development of Quechua, or a different dialectal origin. There are two sets, a prenominal set reminiscent of the Puquina possessive modifiers, and an independent set, which is not confined to the prenominal position (compare English ‘my’ versus ‘mine’). Only the second set allows a number distinction. Table 3.24 contains an overview of the Callahuaya personal pronouns and the two sets of possessive pronouns. The first-person pronoun nisi reflects Puquina ni ‘I’. It contains an element -si also attested in other Callahuaya words such as atasi ‘woman’ (Puquina atago). Possibly, -si reflects the ergative case marker -s of Puquina. The possessive sets contain two origi- nal genitive endings corresponding to different stages in the development of Quechua, namely -p and -x. The concatenation of a genitive and an accusative marker (-ta)is found in Quechua but has a very different syntactic function. It brings into evidence the amount of restructuring that has occurred in Callahuaya. Not all the forms represented in table 3.24 are attested in Oblitas Poblete (1968). Oblitas gives nisinˇcis instead of both nisinˇcex and nisinˇcix.154 Furthermore, the Quechua plural marker -kuna is not followed by the Spanish plural marker -s,asisthe case in Girault’s data. Among other points in which Callahuaya differs from Quechua, we may mention the fact that the accusative case marker -ta is often omitted in direct objects (especially in Girault’s data). Negation is indicated by means of a negative marker u:, which has no formal counterpart in Puquina. Syntactically, u: behaves like the Quechua negative particle mana.

154 The vowel contrast represented in nisinˇcex and nisinˇcix may possibly be related to different articulations of the following fricative (as in Cuzco Quechua). Since we have no specific information on this point, we follow Girault’s orthography. 3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 361

Table 3.25 Callahuaya consonant inventory (based on Stark 1972b)

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular

Plain stops/affricates p tckq ˇ Aspirated stops/affricates ph th cˇh kh qh Glottalised stops/affricates p’ t’c’ ˇ k’ q’ Fricatives/sibilants ssh ˇ [x] Nasals m n ny Vibrant r Laterals l ly Glides w y

(328) tutas u: tutas cold not cold ‘cold’ ‘of moderate temperature’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 82, 139) (329) hikutawan u:-ˇcu hata-wax hata-y-ni:-ta155 also not-IR love-2S.PO love-IF-1P-AC ‘So you could not care for my affection any more?’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 43)

An overview of the Callahuaya phonemes can be found in Stark (1972b). Oblitas Poblete (1968) presents a traditional but relatively precise inventory. The transcription in Girault (1989) is inaccurate, but his publication contains a recorded tape which gives a good impression of the pronunciation of Callahuaya. All authors agree that Callahuaya has a five vowel system with distinctive vowel length (a, e, i, o, u; a:, e:, i:, o:, u:). The consonant inventory, which is very similar to that of Bolivian and Cuzco Quechua, is represented in table 3.25. As a commentary to the consonant inventory in table 3.25, one may observe that a palatal sibilant sˇ,inopposition to s,isnot convincingly attested. Furthermore, Girault’s data point at the existence of a glottal stop that occurs between same vowels, for instance, in ji’i [hiʔi] ‘llama’. In this respect Callahuaya would agree with Puquina, although the items in which the alleged glottal stop occurs are usually not the same. There is no precise information about a possible lowering effect of uvular consonants on high vowels, as found in Quechua and Aymara, but several examples suggest that such an effect may play a role. As a further illustration of the lexical relationship between Puquina and Callahuaya the principal numerals in both languages are given below. Note that the Callahuaya words

155 The first-person marker -ni: corresponds to -ni in Girault (1989). 362 3 The Inca Sphere for the numbers five and higher are very different from their Puquina counterparts. The etymology of these Callahuaya forms is not known.

Puquina: hucsto (‘one’), so (‘two’), cap(p)a (‘three’), sper (‘four’), tacpa (‘five’), chichu (‘six’), stu (‘seven’), quinas (‘eight’), checa (‘nine’), scata (‘ten’) Callahuaya: uksi ∼ uxsi (‘one’), su: ∼ so: (‘two’), kapi (‘three’), pily (‘four’), cismaˇ (‘five’), taxwa (‘six’), qaxsi (‘seven’), wasa (‘eight’), nuki (‘nine’), qhoˇca ∼ x. oˇca (‘ten’), tikun (‘one hundred’).

3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages The speakers of the Uru–Chipaya language family are often believed to belong to one of the oldest population layers of the Bolivian and Peruvian altiplano.Traditionally, they have been associated with an aquatic habitat and a lifestyle of fishing and hunting characteristically found along the shores and on the islands of the lakes Titicaca and Poop´o, as well as along the Desaguadero river, which connects the two lakes (cf. Wachtel 1978). However, lifestyle and language did not necessarily go together. About 1600, Uruquilla was the name used for the Uru–Chipaya languages, although it may have covered some other language groups as well. Uruquilla-speaking groups were found scattered over the western part of the Bolivian altiplano from Lake Titicaca to the area of L´ıpez in the south of the department of Potos´ı (cf. Bouysse-Cassagne 1975). Not all Uruquilla speakers mentioned in the colonial sources shared the typical aquatic lifestyle. In Zepita (province of Chucuito, Puno, Peru) a community of relatively prosperous farmers spoke Uruquilla but did not differ in their ways from their Aymara-speaking neighbours (Torero 1987). The term Uro (Uru)was used mainly for referring to groups who remained attached to the aquatic way of life, thus resisting their incorporation into the Spanish system of domination. One such group were the Ochosuma,who occupied the Desaguadero region, and of which the Iru Itu community (see below) may be a remnant. Another name for the Uru is Kot-su˜n (from qota ‘lake’ and sunyi ‘people’). Today, communities that have preserved or adopted the Uru way of life are mostly Aymara speakers. This is the case with the Uru who live on reed islands in the Bay of Puno (Peru) and of the Murato communities located near Lake Poop´o (department of Oruro, Bolivia). The Murato have preserved some vocabulary originally from an Uru language, as can be seen in the Murato oral testimonies published in Miranda Mamani et al. (1992). The Uru–Chipaya peoples (see also the map in section 3.3) have been the object of extensive anthropological studies (Vellard 1954, Wachtel 1990). Unfortunately, the description of their languages has not fared nearly so well. So far, there is no published grammar, nor a dictionary of any of the Uru–Chipaya languages. The only Uru–Chipaya language still viable today is Chipaya.Itisspoken by an agricultural community of 3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 363 some 1,000 people in the villages of Santa Ana de Chipaya and Ayparavi in the Bolivian department of Oruro (province of Atahuallpa), including an increasing number of mi- grants in northern Chile and in the town of Oruro. The Uru language of Iru Itu (also Iruitu, Irohito)isspoken in a township, which was originally part of a larger commu- nity called Ancoaqui. It is located in the district (cant´on)ofJes´us de Machaca in the Bolivian department of La Paz (province of Ingavi). When Vellard studied this com- munity in the 1940s he witnessed a major crisis due to a lowering of the water level in the lake, which led to a disintegration of the community. The Uru were forced to leave their native village for other places, where several married Aymara-speaking partners. The Uru language was already close to extinction by then. A subsequent rehabilita- tion of the water level made it possible for most Uru to return, and since then their community has achieved a remarkable comeback (Ticona and Alb´o 1997). Today, one fluent speaker remains, as well as a number of semi-speakers. Nevertheless, there is a wish to revitalise the language, which is now preferably referred to as Uchumataqu ‘our speech’ or ‘the speech of the Desaguadero area (Ochosuma)’. At the time of writing (2002) Muysken was conducting descriptive research on the language in response to the educational aspirations of the community. A third Uru language was formerly spoken in the village of Ch’imu (or Ts’imu), a township of Ichu, situated on the shore of Lake Titicaca a few kilometres east of Puno. This variety was discovered and studied in 1929 by the German Americanist Lehmann. His elaborate notes are kept in the Library of the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. Some lexical data from these notes have been published by Torero (1992), who claims that Uru of Ch’imu is the most divergent of the three Uru–Chipaya languages.156 Finally, Olson (1964: 313) mentions a fourth variety of Uru spoken on the Isla del Sol (‘Sun Island’) in Lake Titicaca, presumably in the 1960s. Some lexical items of this dialect, collected by de Lucca, are reproduced in Olson (1965: 37–8). Documentation on the Uru–Chipaya languages is relatively recent. Uhle visited the area in 1894 and left substantial lexical material on both Chipaya and Uchumataqu, as well as a grammatical sketch of the latter language. They are preserved in manuscript form in the Library of the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. M´etraux (1935–6, 1936) provided data on both languages, as did Posnansky (1915, 1934). For Uchumataqu we may also mention Polo (1901) and an unpublished vocabulary by Lehmann (1929). One of the richest sources for Uchumataqu is Vellard (1950, 1951, 1967). It consists of short narratives, and words and phrases, written down with great phonetic detail and provided with glosses, as well as some grammatical notes. Nevertheless, they are hardly sufficient to obtain a clear picture of the morphosyntax of the language. The current research by

156 Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino and Peter Masson are planning a publication of these materials, to be entitled El Uru de la Bah´ıa de Puno (Puno Bay Uru). 364 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.26 Chipaya consonant inventory (based on Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Labial Alveolar +affr* Apical Palatal Retroflex Velar +lab** Postvelar +lab

Plain p t ccˇ ˇ c. kkw qqw obstruents Glottalised p’ t’ c’c’ ˇ c ˇ.’k’ q’ obstruents Aspirated ph th ch cˇh cˇ.h kh qh obstruents Fricatives ssˇ ¸ sˇs. hhw x*** xw Nasals m n ny ŋ Laterals l ly Lateral l fricative Vibrant r Glides w y

* affr. = affricate ** lab. = labialised *** We follow Cerr´on-Palomino and Olson in writing the postvelar or fortis velar fricative (and its labialised counterpart) as x (xw), not x. (x. w ).

Muysken has not provided a better view of it. A comparison of the Vellard materials with the data collected by Uhle is probably the best basis for further analysis. There have been several attempts to study and document the Chipaya language. In the 1960s, Olson collected extensive lexical material. Part of it is included in two ar- ticles designed to present evidence for a putative genetic relationship of Uru–Chipaya with the Mayan languages in Mesoamerica (Olson 1964, 1965). (For the reception of Olson’s views on this see section 1.7.) A third article (Olson 1967) deals with Chipaya syllable structure and contains a discussion of its phoneme inventory. In the 1980s, Porterie-Guti´errez also brought together a substantial amount of Chipaya material, but the publication of it was prevented by her untimely death. An annotated and translated text belonging to this material was published posthumously by Howard (Porterie-Guti´errez 1990). In 2001, Cerr´on-Palomino began a new research effort geared at the documenta- tion of Chipaya. The Chipaya data presented in the following pages are largely based on his results obtained so far (Cerr´on-Palomino MS). A comparison with Uchumataqu will be made when relevant and possible. The two languages are clearly related, although probably not mutually intelligible (Torero 1992: 181). See Olson (1965: 37–8) for a list of 87 obvious cognates, in which most pairs show only minor phonetic differences. The consonant inventory of the Chipaya language is presented in table 3.26. The consonant inventory in Olson (1967) differs from the one presented in table 3.26 by the fact that the aspirated consonants and the lateral fricative (lh) are interpreted as 3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 365 sequences of consonants, rather than as unit phonemes. He characterises the fricatives in the postvelar column (x, xw)as‘fortis velars’. The palatal and the apical fricatives are treated as allophones of a phoneme /s./which occurs as palatal [ˇs] after high vowels and as a backed alveolar [s.] elsewhere. Olson (1967: 300), furthermore, noted the use of a glottal stop in women’s speech; for instance, in oqaʔa ‘I am going’ (as against oqaˇc. a in men’s speech). This usage did not seem to be continued by the younger generation, however. Cerr´on-Palomino notes an absence of restrictions upon the use of aspirated and glot- talised consonants within a root. They occur initially in a syllable but this need not be the first syllable in the root (e.g. in tothi ‘cow’s horn’, kunt’´ı¸s ‘to be sure’). Furthermore, glottalised and aspirated consonants can co-occur in the same root (e.g. in phanˇc’u ‘soft’, c.ˇ’ikha ‘equal’). Considering their great frequency in native roots, there appears to be no reason to assume that glottalisation and aspiration are borrowed features in Chipaya. Note that glottalisation and aspiration are not contrastive in the labiovelar and labiopostvelar stop series. According to Cerr´on-Palomino, it may be due to a recent simplification of the system because free variation between labialised and non-labialised aspirated consonants is still observed in roots such as qha¸s ∼ qhwa¸s ‘water’. In addition, the same variation can be found in the alveodental stop series (e.g. in that¸s ∼ thwat¸s ‘to pile up’). These examples suggest that the labial element may have had the status of a segmental phoneme, rather than that of a feature of the consonant with which it is associated. At present, the loss of labialisation seems to have become a general tendency in the language. Nasal contrasts are maintained in syllable-final position, even that between alveoden- tal n and velar ŋ,asinlan¸s ‘to touch’ and laŋs¸ ‘to work’. The glide consonant w is often realised as a fricative [β], especially when in contact with front vowels (e.g. siwi [siwi ∼ siβi] ‘winter’). Both elements are reminiscent of the situation in the Aymara of northern Chile (cf. section 3.3.3). In comparison to Aymara and Quechua, the articulation point of the postvelars in Chipaya is less retracted and does not normally reach the uvular range. This can make it difficult to recognise the distinction between velars and postvelars. Nevertheless, there is an ample choice of minimal pairs illustrating the contrast:

(330) kara ‘wide’ qara ‘comb’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (331) k’oru ‘bowl’ q’oru ‘a type of hat’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

The consonant inventory of Uchumataqu, as established by Muysken (MS), is similar to Cerr´on-Palomino’s Chipaya inventory but for the absence in the former of the apical and retroflex series (s;¸ c. ˇ, c.ˇ’, c.ˇh, .sˇ). In addition, the alveolar affricate series is only represented by plain c; the velar nasal (ŋ) and the labialised postvelars (qw, xw) are lacking; and glottalised p’ and t’ occur very seldom. Possibly, the situation of near 366 3 The Inca Sphere extinction in which the Uchumataqu language has found itself for decades may be responsible for a reduction of the sound system, but it could also be the result of earlier developments. Both Chipaya and Uchumataqu have a five-vowel system with distinctive vowel length (a, e, i, o, u; a:, e:, i:, o:, u:).157 The contrast of high and mid vowels in Chipaya is illustrated in the following examples:

(332) uwa ‘food’ owa ‘knee’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (333) hik¸s ‘road’ hek¸s ‘to appear’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

The contrast is also retained in the environment of a postvelar consonant. In con- tradistinction to Aymara and Quechua, the automatic lowering of high vowels is either minimal, or does not occur at all in that environment:

(334) qhuˇca ‘potsherd’ qhoˇca ‘foot’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (335) qhinya ‘crippled’ qhenya ‘slow’, ‘dull’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

The difference between short and long vowels is illustrated in (336) and (337):

(336) uˇs.a ‘north’ u:ˇsa ‘sheep’ [Spanish oveja] (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (337) qa¸s ‘to talk’ qa:¸s ‘to cry’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Vowel length in Chipaya is often the result of contractions, which seem to occur frequently in the language; for instance, we:n ‘night’ corresponds to Uchumataqu wiyani (cf. Olson 1965: 37–8). It may provide an explanation for the relatively low functional load of the length distinction. Cerr´on-Palomino notes that after lateral and velar fricatives, as well as after aspirated consonants, vowels tend to be voiceless when the following consonant is also voiceless, e.g. l oki [loki] ‘mud’, thut¸s [thut¸s] ‘to spit’. In Olson (1967) such voicelessness is ˚ ˚ generally interpreted as the manifestation of a syllable-final fricative. Chipaya accepts clusters of two consonants in word-initial and word-final position. Most characteristic are the word-initial clusters consisting of a sibilant which is either followed by a bilabial stop or nasal, or by a velar or postvelar stop. Their occurrence is reminiscent of Puquina (cf. section 3.5). In these clusters the opposition between the sibilants s, s¸ and .sˇ remains intact:

(338) skara ‘hat’ skara¸ ‘toad’ sˇ.kati ‘nearby’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (339) smoya ‘mosquito’ smali¸ ‘strong’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

157 For Uchumataqu Uhle mentions a sixth vowel, underlined e, reported to sound like the vowel in German a¨. Its occurrence still needs to be studied in the word lists he collected. 3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 367

Word-final clusters can be part of a truncated root (for instance, in hik¸s ‘road’, from *hik¸sa; compare hik¸sa-lya ‘little road’). More often they are the result of suffixation, for instance, when the infinitive marker -¸s is added to a verb root. Before -¸s root-final vowels are suppressed (except when preceded by a sequence of more than one consonant).

(340) qulu ‘salt block’ qul-¸s ‘to salt’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (341) wiya ‘dream’ wiy-¸s ‘to dream’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

As can be deduced from the example of the infinitive marker, vowel suppression is a common procedure in Chipaya, in which respect it resembles Aymara. Although in Chipaya word stress is characteristically located on the penultimate syllable, it may remain on the last syllable when the vowel of a word-final syllable is suppressed. A comparison with Uhle’s data shows that the infinitive marker was originally syllabic (-ˇca), hence an example such as (342) in which stress is on the final syllable:

(342) u¸s´ın-¸s [<*u¸s´ın-ˇca] ‘to play’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Within noun phrases the final vowel of the modifying element, which precedes the head, is also subject to truncation; compare the situation in Aymara:

(343) o¸spheta [o¸s(a) pheta] nose opening ‘nostril’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

In Uchumataqu, Muysken (MS) recorded consonant clusters of even greater com- plexity than those found in Chipaya but notes that these tend to become simplified in the speech of the present generation of semi-speakers. The principal morphological device of Chipaya is suffixation. The overall picture, however, is rather different from that in the neighbouring languages. Nominal morphol- ogyisrelatively elaborate and comprises a distinction between feminine and masculine gender, as well as a fair number of case markers. Subject and object are not marked for case. Personal possession is indicated by means of free pronouns marked for genitive case. In a verb phrase person, gender and number of the subject can be specified by means of clitic elements. These elements are normally attached to a non-case-marked expression that accompanies the verb (preferably the object or an adverb, occasionally the subject). Verbal suffixes indicate tense, aspect, mood and evidentiality. The shape of tense/aspect suffixes is to a certain extent again determined by person, gender and number of the subject. The preferred word order in Chipaya is subject–object–verb and within the noun phrase modifier–head.158

158 In Uchumataqu there are a few instances of the reversed order (head–modifier), e.g. in xa´us w´ıri ‘anus’ (xa´us ‘hole’, w´ıri ‘buttocks’); see Muysken (2000: 102). 368 3 The Inca Sphere

The main strategy to indicate feminine gender in nouns is by the addition of a suffix -i. This suffix replaces an original stem-final vowel, if present (344):

(344) a¸snu ‘donkey’ a¸sn-i ‘female donkey’ [Spanish asno] (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication)

Final -i is often elided when preceded by a single consonant (345), except when such an elision would lead to the coincidence of a feminine form with its masculine counterpart. This is the case, for instance, in Spanish proper names ending in a consonant (346).

(345) u:ˇsa ‘sheep’ u:ˇs-i ∼ u:ˇs ‘ewe’ [Spanish oveja] (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication) (346) huwan ‘John’ huwan-i ‘Joan’ [Spanish Juan] (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication)

The demonstratives ti: ‘this’ and ni: ‘that/he’, as well as the numeral ci: ‘one’, have special feminine forms: ta:, na: and ca:, respectively. The markers of the genitive case with nouns are also sensitive to gender. When used as modifiers, masculine nouns take .sˇ,whereas feminine nouns replace their final -i with -a.

h y h y (347) kuˇc-ˇs. k un ikuˇc-a k un i [kuˇci ‘pig’, Old Spanish coche] pig-G.MS ear pig-G.FE ear ‘pig ears’ ‘sow ears’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication)

According to Cerr´on-Palomino (personal communication), pronouns (both mascu- line and feminine) have a special genitive case marker -(i)ˇ.s,which has the function of indicating the agent in a passive construction. (The long allomorph -iˇ.s is found after the personal pronoun stems wer ‘I’ and am ‘you’, which end in a consonant.) With demonstrative pronouns a genitive of possession is also formed in this way. When used independently or predicatively, all genitives of possession (whether nom- inal or pronominal) are followed by an element -ta,which is sensitive to the gender distinction; for instance, in (348):

(348) ni:-ˇs.-ta ni:-ˇs.-t-i that-G-N that-G-N-FE ‘his one’ ‘his female one’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

The personal pronouns wer ‘I’ and am ‘you’ have special genitive forms we-t(a) and am-ta, respectively, for both attributive and predicative possessive use. The short form we-t is used as a prenominal modifier (349). The final element -ta is again subject to the gender distinction (350). 3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 369

(349) we-tcuwa ˇ I-G plate (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication) ‘my plate’ (350) we-ta we-t-i I-G.N I-G.N-FE ‘(it is) mine’ ‘(it is) my female one’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

In a verb phrase with a third-person subject, gender is reflected in the choice of the clitic that accompanies the verb. In the following examples the clitic elements -(i)ˇs. for masculine, and -(i)l for feminine, are attached to the adverb maxnya. The element -ki-, which accompanies the future-tense marker -a-,isused with all persons except first singular and plural (exclusive). It is not sensitive to gender.

y h 159 (351) ni:-nak-ki maxn a-ˇs. t ax-a-ki-ˇc.a that.MS-PL-TO early-MS sleep-F-F.NS-DV ‘They (those men) will sleep early.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) y h (352) na:-nak-ki maxn a-l t ax-a-ki-ˇc.a that.FE-PL-TO early-FE sleep-F-F. NS-DV ‘They (those women) will sleep early.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Although in the context illustrated in (351) and (352) the sole function of -(i)l and -(i)ˇ.s is to distinguish gender, they can have other functions as well. The element -(i)l is used with the first person singular and plural exclusive, and with the third person feminine singular and plural; -(i)ˇs. is used with the first person plural inclusive, with the second person plural, and with the third person masculine singular and plural. A special clitic -(i)m, akin to the second-person-singular pronoun am,isused in verb phrases with a second-person-singular subject. (The long forms -il, -im and -iˇs. occur after consonant-final personal pronouns.) The use of the first and second persons singular is illustrated in (353) and (354). Note that the required enclitics are attached to the subject of these sentences as no other constituents are available.

(353) wer-il sat-a-ˇc.a I-1 run-F-DV ‘I shall run.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (354) am-im sat-a-ki-ˇc.a you-2.SG run-F-F.NS-DV ‘You (singular) shall run.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

159 Cerr´on-Palomino reports that the ending -ki-ˇc. a is pronounced [kˇs.]innon-careful speech, in which case stress is located on the vowel immediately preceding it. 370 3 The Inca Sphere

If a sentence contains a direct object, the latter often carries the clitic element:

y (355) Luwisitu-ki t’anta-ˇs. lul-n i-ˇc.a Luisito-TO bread-3.MS eat-CU.3.MS-DV ‘Luisito is in the habit of eating bread.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Although the preferred word order is subject–object–verb, other order options are al- lowed as well. As a result, a sentence such as (356), in which the object carrying the clitic follows the verb, is acceptable.

y (356) Luwisitu-ki lul-n i-ˇc.a t’anta-ˇs. Luisito-TO eat-CU.3.MS-DV bread-3.MS ‘Luisito is in the habit of eating bread.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

If there is no other stem to which the clitic element can be attached, it may also occur as a proclitic with the verb itself. Example (357) illustrates the use of a proclitic corresponding to a first person plural inclusive.160

(357) sˇ.-lik-la 4-drink-4.IM ‘Let us drink!’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Cerr´on-Palomino notes that the use of clitics indicating subject reference could be entering a phase of obsolescence. Present-day speakers tend to omit them without af- fecting the acceptability of the utterance. He observes, furthermore, that the location of the clitic in the sentence can have a focalising function. As we anticipated, the shape of the tense–aspect markers is also partly determined by the person and the number of the subject, thus generating complicated patterns of con- cord. These concord patterns may differ in accordance with the tense–aspect paradigm involved. Consider the use of the element -ki- in the future-tense paradigm (see above). As an additional illustration, the paradigm of the unmarked present tense is reproduced in table 3.27. It contains a suffix -u- in forms with a first-person-singular subject, whereas in all other person–number combinations the corresponding slot remains empty. The exemplified phrase contains an adverb sina¸ ‘alone’ followed by the delimitative suffix -lya ‘only’ (a suffix presumably borrowed from Quechua, where it has the same shape and meaning). This adverb also carries the enclitic that indicates person, gender and number. The exemplified verb is thax- ‘to sleep’. Table 3.27 suggests that there is no formal difference between singular and plural in the third person. However, other tense–aspect paradigms have different forms for singular and plural in the third person feminine. Such, for instance, is the case in the

160 Muysken reports that Uchumataqu also allows proclitic subject markers. 3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 371

Table 3.27 Unmarked present tense in Chipaya (from Cerr´on-Palomino, MS).

1 pers. sing. sina-l¸ ya-l thax-u-ˇc. a ‘I sleep alone.’ plur. (excl.) sina-l¸ ya-l thax-ˇc. a ‘We (excl.) sleep alone.’ 2 pers. sing. sina-l¸ ya-m thax-ˇc. a ‘You (sing.) sleep alone. plur. sina-l¸ ya-ˇ.s thax-ˇc. a ‘You (plur.) sleep alone.’ 3 pers. masc. sing. sina-l¸ ya-ˇ.s thax-ˇc. a ‘He sleeps alone.’ masc. plur. sina-l¸ ya-ˇ.s thax-ˇc. a ‘They (men) sleep alone.’ 3 pers. fem. sing. sina-l¸ ya-l thax-ˇc. a ‘She sleeps alone.’ fem. plur. sina-l¸ ya-l thax-ˇc. a ‘They (women) sleep alone.’ 4 pers. plur. (incl.) sina-l¸ ya-ˇ.s thax-ˇc. a ‘We (incl.) sleep alone.’

past-tense (completive) paradigm illustrated below:

y h (358) na:-ki maxn a-l t ax-ˇcin-ˇc.a that.FE-TO early-3.FE sleep-PA.3.FE.SG-DV ‘She slept early.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) y h (359) na:-nak-ki maxn a-l t ax-ˇci-ˇc.a that.FE-PL-TO early-3.FE sleep-PA.3.FE.PL-DV ‘They (those women) slept early.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

The element -ˇc. a,which we have glossed as a declarative marker, is also found after a noun or adjective in verbless equational clauses, such as (360):

h h (360) am q oya q ay-ˇcuka ew-ˇc.a you house buy-FN new-DV ‘The house that you are going to buy is new.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

The declarative marker -ˇc. a is almost certainly related to the very characteristic ending -ˇcay of Uchumataqu. Muysken (2000) discusses its function in that language and finds that it is used in declarative and exhortative sentences, as well as in yes/no questions and in some wh-questions. It is not used in imperatives and in infinitival complements. Like its Chipaya equivalent, the element -ˇcay is also found affixed to nouns and adjectives. An example of a declarative sentence in Uchumataqu is:

 161 (361) w´ır-il x´ala k’´ay˘ap´e.k u-ˇcay I-1 llama buy want-PN.1.SG-DV ‘I want to buy a llama.’ (Vellard 1967: 14)

161 In examples taken from Vellard we have tried to respect his phonetic notation. The apostrophe (as in pˇe. k’-u-ˇcay ‘I want’) is reproduced in a slightly different way in order to avoid confusion with the glottalisation sign. 372 3 The Inca Sphere

Vellard (1951: 37–9) presents some partial Uchumataqu verb paradigms. They sug- gest a structure comparable to that of Chipaya (see also Muysken 2000). The Chipaya examples given in Olson (1967) contain evidential elements referring to hearsay and probability that appear to fill the slot of the tense–aspect markers (e.g. ap-ˇs. -ki-ˇc. a ‘he is following, they say’; e:kt-qal-ˇc. a ‘he surely had hungered’).162 Olson (1965: 33) also notes causative formations such as t-xaw-un- ‘to cause to shout’ from qhaw- ‘to shout’. A reflexive marker -s- is recorded by Cerr´on-Palomino in the form peka-s- ‘to love each other’ (cf. Aymara -si-). These examples make it clear that the verbal morphology of Chipaya still holds a number of areas to investigate. Cerr´on-Palomino mentions several verbal affixes that are used as nominalisers. Verbs such as pek(a)- ‘to want’ can be used with infinitive complements containing the affix -¸s (362). Note the absence of an infinitive marker in a parallel construction in Uchumataqu (361).

h (362) ni:-kic ˇ iˇswi-ˇs. lul-¸s pek-ˇc.a he-TO meat-3.MS eat-IF want-DV ‘He wants to eat meat.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

There are several other nominalising affixes, -ˇcuka ‘potential’, -nyi ‘agentive’, -ˇci and -ta ‘resultative’, which can be used to form relative clauses and complement clauses. Relative clauses and complement clauses precede the noun or the verb, respectively, on which they depend. Their internal order is subject–object–verb. Note, however, that the (human) subject of an embedded complement clause can be extracted to a position preceding the (non-human) subject of the main clause, as illustrated in (360); a further example is (363):

(363) am kula lul-ˇci ana wali-ˇc.a [Spanish vale ‘it is worth’; Aymara you eat-SN not good-DV wali ‘good’] ‘The quinoa you have eaten is not good.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

A complement clause without subject extraction is illustrated in (364):

h (364) am-ki werc ˇ iˇswi lul-ˇcisi¸ ¸ s-ˇc.a you-TO I meat eat-SN know-DV ‘You know that I have eaten meat.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Relative or complement clauses containing the nominaliser -ˇci,asexemplified in Cerr´on-Palomino (MS), follow the pattern of main clauses in that their subjects are not

162 The source does not offer any morpheme glosses for these forms. 3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 373 marked for case. If the nominaliser is -ta (compare Aymara -ta) the agent of the clause can take (possessive) genitive case marking:

h (365) we-t qam-ta q oya qac-ˇci-ˇc.a I-G live-SN house be.lost-PA.3.MS-DV ‘The house where I used to live got lost.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Chipaya has a special nominaliser -i expressing the action goal of verbs of motion (a function which in Aymara and Quechua is fulfilled by the agentive nominalisation). Less immediate goals can be expressed by the combination -¸s-xapa (infinitive + benefactive case).

(366) wer-naka lul-i-l oq-a-ˇc.a I-PL eat-GO-1 go-F-DV ‘We will go and eat.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) h (367) wer-ki laŋ-¸s-xapa t on-ˇcin-ˇc.a I-TO work-IF-B come-PA.1-DV ‘I have come in order to work.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Chipaya has an active switch-reference system operating in subordinate clauses. The endings used for this purpose have a double function. They specify the identity of the subject of a subordinate verb in relation to the verb to which it is subordinated (same or different), and they contain an indication of the temporal relationship of the two verbs (simultaneous or consecutive). The following examples illustrate the use of switch-reference with simultaneous events; the endings are -kan for same, and -nan for different subjects. It has not been determined yet whether or not the element -¸s- in (368) is to be seen as a part of the switch-reference marker. We assume that in (369) the element -ˇ.s corefers with the third-person subject of the main clause.

h (368) ni:-kic ˇ iˇswi lul-¸s-kan tik-ˇci-ˇc.a he-TO meat eat-?-SM.SS die-PA.3.MS-DV ‘He died while he was eating meat.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) h (369) wer-ˇs. u:ˇsa kon-nan we-t hila-ki t on-ˇci-ˇc.a [Aymara hila ‘brother] I-3.MS sheep kill-SM.DS I-G brother-TO come-PA.3.MS-DV ‘When I was killing the sheep, my brother arrived.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Example (370) illustrates the use of switch-reference (different subjects) between verbs referring to consecutive events. The ending -tan indicates that the subordinate event is previous to the one expressed by the main verb. 374 3 The Inca Sphere

h y h (370) t un i qat-tan waxta t on-ˇcam-ˇc.a sun fall-PV.DS town come-PA.2.SG-DV ‘When the sun had fallen, you came to the village.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)

Apart from the genitive (see above), the Chipaya case system comprises an instrumental–comitative -(ˇs. )tan, illative -(ˇ.s)ki¸s,ablative (also in comparisons) -ki¸stan, two locatives -ki¸s and -kin, perlative -nuˇ.s and benefactive -xapa. Cerr´on-Palomino re- ports that where there is a choice the shorter forms are used with feminine nouns. The benefactive must be preceded by a genitive marker. (The same may hold for the instrumental–comitative and illative endings.) There are some additional case markers of Quechua origin. The two locative case markers are distinguished as follows: -ki¸s is used when the location referred to coincides with that of the speaker (371). If not, -kin is used (372).

(371) wer-ki urur-ki¸s qam-u-ˇc.a I-TO Oruro-L.PX live-PN.1.SG-DV ‘I live here in Oruro.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication) (372) wer-ki urur-kin qam-u-ˇc.a I-TO Oruro-L.DT live-PN.1SG-DV ‘I live in Oruro (not here).’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication)

The Uchumataqu case markers only partly resemble their Chipaya counterparts, e.g. comitative -st´a(ni), instrumental -st´a ∼ -n´a,ablative -kistani, allative -k´ı(na) and perla- tive -nis. Illative is -w´ınta ∼ -wint´ani and locative is -(kos)t´a (Vellard 1967: 27; Muysken 2000). Other locative endings are (with motion) -ki (kw´as-ki ‘into the water’) and -nik (uhˇc-nik ‘into the fire’) and (without motion) -na/-nu (kw´as-na, kw´as-nu ‘in the water’, Vellard 1967: 4–5). Some Uchumataqu examples are given below:

(373) w´ır-ilo ´¸kwa-ˇca ki-st´ani I-1 go-DV he-C ‘I go with him.’ (Vellard 1967: 28) (374) w´ır-il w´atta-k´ınao ´¸kwa-ˇcay I-1 village-AL go-DV ‘I go to the village.’ (Vellard 1967: 29) (375) w´ır-il w´atta-kistani p´ıˇca-ˇcay I-1 village-AB come-DV ‘I come from the village.’ (Vellard 1967: 29) (376) w´at-niso ´¸kw-´a-ˇcay village-PT go-F-DV ‘I shall go through the village.’ (Vellard 1967: 29) 3.7 The Atacame˜no language 375

The personal pronouns of Chipaya are wer ‘I’, wer-naka ‘we (exclusive)’, uˇc. um- naka ‘we (inclusive)’, am ‘you (singular)’, am-ˇc. uk ‘you (plural)’, ni: ‘he’, ni:-naka ‘they (masculine)’, na: ‘she’, na:-naka ‘they (feminine)’; the Uchumataqu pronouns are wir/wer ‘I’, uˇcum(i) ‘we (exclusive)’, am ‘you (singular)’, am-ˇcuka ‘you (plural)’, ni ‘he’, ‘she’, ni-naka ‘they’. For the inclusive first person Vellard (1951: 16) gives a form w´aqpac´ ˇumi, probably from waqpaˇca ‘all’ and uˇcumi ‘we’. The pluraliser suffix -naka coincides with Aymara and may be a borrowed element. The interrogative pronouns h´ek ‘who’, cul(˜ˇ u) ‘what’, ks´ım ‘where’ and kas´ut ‘when’ were recorded by Vellard (1967) for Uchumataqu; cf. Chipaya hek ‘who’ (Porterie- Guti´errez 1990) and c.ˇhulu ‘what’ (Olson 1965: 31). Vellard (1951, 1967) recorded a full decimal set of numerals for Uchumataqu: ¸it     ‘one’, p´ıˇsk i ‘two’, c´ˇe. p i ‘three’, p´axk up´ıki ‘four’, t´ax sn´uko. ‘five’, t´ax-t-n´uko. ‘six’, to.˜´ko. ‘seven’, ko.˜´ko. ‘eight’, s´ar-n´uko. ‘nine’ and kalu/kalo. ‘ten’. Chipaya has preserved only four of its original numerals: ti: ‘one’ (Olson 1965: chi:), piˇska ‘two’, cˇhep ‘three’, paqpik ‘four’; the remaining numbers are borrowed from Aymara. There is a special term for ‘two people’: Uchumataqu p´ıkilt´a(ni) (Vellard 1967), Chipaya pukultan (Porterie- Guti´errez 1990). Vellard, furthermore, mentions the existence of an ancient numeral system recorded near Tiahuanaco, which in the 1940s was known to some of the Uru. Some of its components bear a resemblance to Aymara, others to Uchumataqu. Olson (1964: 313) reports that in his unpublished vocabulary of Chipaya 33 per cent of the items are loans from Aymara, Quechua and Spanish. We may assume that a similar figure holds for Uchumataqu. A high percentage of borrowings does not surprise, considering the sociolinguistic situation. There seem to be cases, however, where Uru– Chipaya must have been the giving language. Aymara speakers in Solajo near Carumas (Moquegua, Peru) use a verb lul(u)- ‘to eat’, which is similar in form to the Uru–Chipaya term (Chipaya lul-).163 It has not been found in other Aymaran dialects. Furthermore, it would be a mistake to limit the attention to the three languages mentioned above. Uru–Chipaya also has some vocabulary in common with Puquina and with Moset´en, e.g. Chipaya si¸¸ s-, Uchumataqu siˇˇ s-, Puquina sisca ‘to know’; Uchumataqu t´ara, Moset´en (Sakel 2003) tyar˜˜ aʔ ‘maize’. For more cases of Uru–Puquina contact see Torero (1992).

3.7 The Atacame˜no language The people of the Atacama desert in northern Chile have attracted the attention of travellers and scientists by their relatively isolated position and the impressive natural setting that surrounds their picturesque old villages. The habitat of the Atacame˜nos is situated in the Chilean region of Antofagasta, between the river Loa (east of Calama) and the border with Argentina and Bolivia, which is marked by a series of 6,000 metre

163 Recorded by the author during fieldwork in Moquegua in 1984. 376 3 The Inca Sphere high volcanoes. The main oasis San Pedro de Atacama is dominated by the Licancabur (‘the mountain of the community’, by which San Pedro is understood). Most Atacame˜no villages, such as C´amar, Peine, Socaire, S´oncor, Tilomonte, Tilopozo and Toconao, are situated to the south and southeast of San Pedro, between the Atacama salt-lake (Salar de Atacama) and the border. A second area is situated at a distance north of San Pedro near the banks of the Loa and Salado rivers; it comprises the villages of Caspana and Chiu Chiu. The language of the Atacame˜no people is also known as Kunza,aword meaning ‘ours’ in Atacame˜no, or as Lican antai ‘language of the community’. Several sources report that its area of influence, and possibly the language itself, once extended further east into adjacent parts of Argentina (Philippi 1860) and the southwestern tip of Bolivia (Ibarra Grasso 1958). A genetic relation of Atacame˜no with what was originally its eastern and southern neighbour, the Diaguita or Kak´an language group, was long considered likely (Schuller 1908; Mason 1950), but the absence of any reliable Diaguita data (cf. Nardi 1979) precludes the verification of this hypothesis.164 Kunza received a substantial amount of attention in publications of the nineteenth century. They give an interesting view of the protracted process of extinction that has af- fected the language. Foreign scientists, Chilean state officials and local parish priests165 collaborated in collecting word-lists and grammatical notes, which are useful but in- sufficient to obtain a full picture of the language (Philippi 1860; von Tschudi 1866–9; Moore 1878). The best sources date from the 1890s. They consist of a grammatical sketch by the Chilean engineer Francisco San Rom´an (1890), based on data collected after 1883, and a word list (glosario) with pronunciation notes, the product of a joint effort of several interested scholars (Va¨ısse, Hoyos and Echeverr´ıa y Reyes 1896). A drawback to the study of Atacame˜no is the absence of text. Several ritual songs that are performed without being understood any longer and two versions of the Lord’s Prayer, written down by the Swiss Americanist Johann Jakob von Tschudi, make up the entire corpus (cf. Lehnert Santander 1976). At the end of the eighteenth century the Atacame˜no language was still in use, although the community itself was probably never greater than a few thousand. Since colonial times many Atacame˜no people were experts in leading pack-animals across the icy and desolate Puna de Atacama (cf. Bowman 1924). This activity took them to places far

164 Swadesh (1959: 18) saw a connection between Atacame˜no and two native languages of Rondˆonia, Brazil: Kapishana (now known as Kanoˆe) and Mashub´ı. To date, Mashub´ıisclas- sified as a Jabut´ıan language and considered unrelated to Kanoˆe. A rapid comparison of an unpublished vocabulary of the Kanoˆe language (Bacelar 1996) with the Atacame˜no lexical ma- terial has brought no evidence that would support a relationship between these two languages. 165 At the church of San Pedro a tablet proudly commemorates the efforts of those who studied the Kunza language, in particular, the parish priests Benito Maglio and Emilio Va¨ısse. 3.7 The Atacame˜no language 377 away from their native oases, a circumstance which may have speeded up the demise of the language. In 1858 Tschudi estimated the number of Atacame˜no speakers at less than 200. At the end of the nineteenth century, San Rom´an reported that the language was known only by a few octogenarians and that it would soon be gone. Va¨ısse et al. (1896) estimated the number of Kunza speakers at less than two dozen. It comes, therefore, as a surprise that sixty years later Mostny was still able to locate (semi-)speakers in the village of Peine (Mostny 1954). Mostny’s data, however limited, are relevant for the understanding and interpretation of the nineteenth-century material. Among other things, she published a local version (in Kunza) of the tal´atur,aritual song related to the annual ceremony of cleaning the irrigation canals, and made a valuable effort to interpret its contents. Later on, another version of the tal´atur, recorded in 1976 and originally from the village of Socaire, also appeared in press (Rodr´ıguez 1991).166 Atacame˜no is fairly well documented as far as its lexicon goes. All the available lexical data have been brought together by a research group from the University of Valpara´ıso in an (unpublished) computerised dictionary (S´aez Godoy et al. 1974). On the other hand, the grammatical information is extremely limited and sketchy, because San Rom´an only gives information on a few selected aspects of the grammar. The case system, for instance, is not presented at all. As for the sounds of Atacame˜no, the sources coincide in saying that it was a harsh-sounding language with many unpronounceable sounds, which could not be represented easily with the symbols of the Latin . The orthography which is used by the different sources is far from consistent. Nevertheless, both San Rom´an and Va¨ısse et al.offer interesting observations on the pronunciation, which make it possible to reconstruct several aspects of the Atacame˜no sound inventory. In contrast to Aymara and Quechua, Atacame˜no had five distinct (short) vowels: a, e, i, o, u.167 Contrastive pairs for the front and back vowels, respectively, are sem(m)a ‘one’ vs. sim(m)a ‘man’, and potor ‘landslide’ vs. putchur ‘flower’. Cases of distinctive vowel length are found in some environments at least, e.g. ckacka ‘forehead’, ckaacka ‘stutterer’. The hyphen in forms such as cki-itur ‘to fight’ and ma-istur ‘to find’ suggests the presence of an intervocalic glottal stop. The spelling of the verb balt-hitur ‘to run’ in Va¨ısse et al. possibly indicates that the glottal stop could occur in other positions as well. Interestingly, few lexical items in the glossary of Va¨ısse et al.begin with a vowel; a and i are the only vowels found in that position. Items that do have an initial vowel

166 The tal´atur and another Kunza ritual song, the cauz´ulor,have been brought out on music albums: Le Chant du Monde: Chez les indiens du d´esert d’Atacama LDZ-S-4287 (no date); and Unesco Collection Musical Sources: Amerindian Ceremonial Music from Chile 6586-026 (1975). 167 Mostny (1954) recorded a word containing schwa-type vowels (cˇərəsnər ‘narrow opening in the rocks that lets through water’). 378 3 The Inca Sphere are mainly grammatical words (e.g. ackcka ‘I’; ‘that much’) and loan words (e.g. atitur ‘to win’, ‘to be superior’, from Quechua ati-; astatur ‘to whip’, from Spanish azotar). Most of the non-grammatical native words with initial a that are listed in the Va¨ısse glossary have alternative forms beginning with an aspiration (h), e.g. ara ∼ hara ‘lodging place’, ‘temporary shelter’, atta ∼ hatta ∼ haata ‘yesterday’.168 The interrelation between aspiration and vowel length, as illustrated in the latter example, is of particular interest. San Rom´an states explicitly that aspirations in Kunza are followed by ‘a notable lengthening of the vowel’. In his conjugation of the verb ‘to eat’, San Rom´an registers ohlmtur (with the aspiration written after the vowel), whereas Va¨ısse et al.haveholmtur. This suggests that the aspiration may have been simultaneous with the vowel, rather than previous or successive to it. Cases of postvocalic aspiration as recorded by San Rom´an (e.g. in ohlmtur ‘to eat’ and pahni ‘child’) have been interpreted as a phenomenon accessory to phonemic vowel length (Lehnert Santander 1987). On the other hand, as we have just seen, there are also cases where aspiration triggers length, rather than the opposite. The consonant inventory of Atacame˜no, as represented in the glossary of Va¨ısse et al., is surprisingly small. There is no doubt that glottalisation could be distinctive in the labial and in the alveolar positions (e.g. poi.ya169 [poyya] ‘calf of leg’, ppoya [p’oya] ‘two’; tilir ‘spicy’, ttelir [t’elir] ‘vicu˜na’). Nevertheless, many forms are listed with both a glottalised and a plain initial, indicating that the distinctive value of glottalisation may have been limited. For the palatal series the glossary employs only one symbol: tch. The added explanation (Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 33) suggests that it referred to a glottalised, rather than to a plain alveopalatal affricate comparable to Spanish ch.However, San Rom´an makes a distinction between the symbols ch (as in choraca [ˇcoraka] ‘ostrich’) and chch (as in chchoya [ˇc’oya] ‘seven’), thereby indicating a glottalisation distinction in the palatal series as well. Strangely, the Va¨ısse glossary contains no evidence of glottalisation in the velar or postvelar series, nor does it distinguish between these two series at all. It employs the symbol ck to cover all of the velar and postvelar areas of articulation (except for h). The sound corresponding to ck is described as comparable to ch in German followed byasound similar to r, thereby creating the suggestion of a postvelar fricative (Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 15).170 However, San Rom´an affirms that there were several k-like sounds in Atacame˜no, ‘to be written c or k,inaccordance with their degree of strength’. He

168 There are a few non-grammatical items with initial i in the Va¨ısse glossary: ipnatur ‘to stick to’ and ittin(tur) ‘(to put) straight’; they have no alternative forms with initial h. 169 From here on, the hyphen in the glossary is replaced by a dot, in order to avoid confusion with morpheme boundary markers. 170 The symbol ck is used in the descriptive tradition of the Argentinian Quechua dialect of Santiago del Estero for the representation of a uvular stop. 3.7 The Atacame˜no language 379 assigns a special status to a sound which he writes qc or q-c,inl´ıqcau ‘woman’ (Va¨ısse et al.: lickau), and which is supposed to be pronounced with ‘a certain tenderness’. His characterisation of the initial consonant in khˆuro ‘wind’ (ckuri ∼ ckuru´ı.ya in Va¨ısse et al.) seems to refer to a strongly aspirated postvelar stop.171 Other spellings used by San Rom´an are c-k in v´ac-ka ‘river’ (back.cka in Va¨ısse et al.), cj in cjaratur ‘to break’, cc in ccaratur ‘to cut’ (both ckaratur in Va¨ısse et al.), and qqu in qquepe ‘eye’ (ckepe or ckepi in Va¨ısse et al.) The initial sound in this last word also drew the attention of von Tschudi, who wrote igkjepe and described a deeply guttural sound, both preceded and followed by affrication (S´aez Godoy 1971). In sum, there can be no other conclusion than that Va¨ısse et al. fell short in establishing the relevant distinctions that existed between Atacame˜no velar and postvelar sounds.172 The other symbols that are found in the Va¨ısse glossary are b (sometimes written v), l, m, n, r, s and y. All are described as having similar functions as their equivalents in Spanish or other languages. The sound b is historically related to w in other Andean languages, as can be seen in integrated loan words, such as baina ‘boy-friend’, ‘lover’ (Quechua wayna) and backtcha ‘poor’, ‘orphan’ (Quechua wakˇca).173 The sound [w] it- self, written hu,islimited to loans (e.g. hualcka ‘necklace’, from Quechua walyqa; huata ‘belly’ from guata) and onomatopoeic expressions. In contradistinction to Aymara and Quechua, there were no palatal laterals and nasals (ly, ny). Philippi (1860) and von Tschudi (1866–9) recorded what may have been a voiceless, aspirated lateral in the word h(j)lacse ‘head’ (Va¨ısse et al.: lacksi). In addition to the consonants just mentioned, there was an affricate ts ∼ tz,which may have had the status of a separate phoneme. It was apparently not very frequent; e.g. aytzir ‘vizcacha (an Andean rodent)’; tserar ∼ serar ‘cold’, ‘winter’; tsimir ∼ tchimir ‘snow’. Table 3.28 represents a tentative, if not speculative, overview of the speech sounds that may have existed in Atacame˜no. Consonants for which we have no direct evidence are given between square brackets. Round brackets indicate that the sound is limited to loan words. Clusters of up to three consonants, in medial position, and of two consonants, in initial or final position, are not uncommon, e.g. ckolcktur ‘to fall’, icks ‘like that’. Remarkable is the frequent occurrence of geminate consonants in medial position (e.g. ackcka ‘I’).

171 Note that Va¨ısse et al.haveckuru for ‘mountain-lion’, whereas San Rom´an has k´uhri (cf. Lehnert Santander 1987). Confusion may have arisen in one or the other of the two sources. 172 In 1981 Bill Harrison (personal communication) recorded names of fields, plants and a few lexical items in the village of Caspana. His taped recording contains ample evidence of glot- talised as well as aspirated velars and uvulars. Only two conclusions can be reached: either the Atacame˜no of the Salado river basin differed considerably from that of the San Pedro area, or Va¨ısse et al. somehow failed to recognise the distinctions. 173 A similar development (*w >β) can be observed in the Aymara of northern Chile (cf. Clair-Vassiliadis 1976) and in Chipaya (section 3.6). 380 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.28 Tentative inventory of the Atacame˜no sounds

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Postvelar Glottal

Plain stops p t k q ʔ Glottalised stops p’ t’ [k’] [q’] Plain affricates cc ˇ Glottalised affricatesc’ ˇ Fricatives b s x, γ x. h Nasals m n Plain lateral l Voiceless lateral l Vibrant r Glides (w) y

Vowels: a, e, i, o, u, ə(?) length aspiration (= h)

‘These consonants are pronounced more strongly and more separate than in Italian’, says San Rom´an (1967: 88). Gemination may have been the result of an active phonological process, because it could affect loan words from Quechua and Spanish as well as native words, e.g. ckas.sa ‘mountain-pass’ (from Quechua q’asa), am.mu ‘boss’, ‘master’ (from Spanish amo). However, the existence of gemination has not been recorded for all lexical items containing an intervocalic consonant. Theoretically, the orthographic gemination may have represented glottalisation, as in ttelir ‘vicu˜na’, but the inventory of consonants affected (stops, fricatives, resonants) and the frequent presence of a hyphen between two identical consonants does not seem to favour such a conclusion. As far as the rudimentary data available allow a general characterisation of the language, the following grammatical facts emerge. Atacame˜no presents a mixture of prefixation and suffixation. Personal reference affixes were prefixed to both verb and noun. Tense, mood, nominalisation and negation with verbs, as well as nominal case were indicated by means of suffixes. The morphology does not seem to be very elab- orate. Perhaps this can be attributed to the state of decay in which the language found itself when it was recorded. The general order was subject–object–verb, and modifiers preceded heads with one notable exception: adjectives were located after substantives, as in puri lari ‘red water’ (from puri ‘water’ and lari ‘red’).174

174 This situation is characteristic of a whole range of languages native to northern Argentina and northern Chile, such as Atacame˜no, Lule, Santiago del Estero Quechua and possibly also Diaguita (Nardi 1979). It corresponds to type 24 in Greenberg’s classification of basic word- order types (Greenberg 1966: 109). 3.7 The Atacame˜no language 381

Table 3.29 Possessive nominal paradigm in Atacame˜no (based on San Rom´an 1967)

locjma ‘dog’

1 pers. singular c’-locjma-ia ‘my dog’ plural cun-locjma-ia ‘our dog’ 2 pers. singular s’-locjma-ia ‘your (sing.) dog’ plural chin-locjma-ia ‘your (plur.) dog’ 3 pers. singular ai-locjma-ia ‘his/her dog’ plural c’-locjma-ia ‘their dog’

The possessive nominal paradigm as given by San Rom´an is illustrated in table 3.29 with the noun l´ocjma (Va¨ısse et al.: lockma) ‘dog’. Note that a relational element -ia ∼ -ya is added to the root. The significance of the apostrophe that occurs with some of the prefixes remains unexplained. It may indicate the absence of a syllabic vowel. In Va¨ısse et al. many grammatical elements, including bound morphemes, are listed as separate lexical items. The prefixes for first- and second-person possessor are recorded as cki.i and iss, respectively. The latter form can be recognised in one of the ver- sions of the Lord’s Prayer collected by von Tschudi (377). (In this and in the fol- lowing examples the square brackets indicate the forms such as they occur in Va¨ısse et al.)

(377) is chea [tchei ‘name’] {is-che-ya} 2P.SG-name-RL ‘Thy Name’175 (von Tschudi 1866–9, in Echeverr´ıa y Reyes 1967)

San Rom´an assigns two other functions to the element ia ∼ ya. One of these functions is that of an affixed article with nouns (378). It is possible that this so-called article indicated possession of a noun by a non-identified possessor.

(378) sil´a-ya llama-RL [sil.la, sila ‘llama’] ‘the llama’ (maybe: ‘someone’s llama’) (San Rom´an 1967: 79)

175 The full sentence is santi.hijia is-che-a ya-clo ‘Hallowed be Thy Name!’ (hallowed 2P.SG-name- RL be-IM). At the present state of our knowledge it is not possible to analyse the expression santi hijia,but note its resemblance to Spanish santificar (‘to hallow’). 382 3 The Inca Sphere

Table 3.30 Atacame˜no personal and possessive pronouns (San Rom´an 1967; Va¨ısse et al. 1896)

San Rom´an Va¨ısse et al. San Rom´an Va¨ısse et al.

I acca ackcka mine acsa, ajsaya´ * acksaya you (sing.) chema tchema yours (sing.) chienza, ch´ensaya tch´ensaya we cuna ckunna ours cunza ckunsa you (plur.) chime tch´ımi yours (plur.) chienza, chinzaya tch´ensaya he ia, ya ´ı.ya his isa, is´aya issi.ya

* The j sounds as ch in German (San Rom´an 1967: 83).

The other function of ia ∼ ya is that of a predication marker (copula) with pronominal predicates (379). Whenever two nominals (i.e. a noun and an adjective) were connected predicatively, a copula or predication marker was apparently not required (380).

(379) chema ya [tchema ‘you’] you be ‘You are.’ ‘It’s you.’ (San Rom´an 1967: 85) (380) v´alchar [pauna ‘child’; baltchar ‘bad’] child bad ‘The child is bad.’ (San Rom´an 1967: 87)

There are two sets of pronouns to match the possessive prefixes: a set of personal pronouns and a derived set of possessive prounouns, containing the genitive element -sa. The pronouns that can be extracted from San Rom´an’s work and the corresponding forms from the Va¨ısse glossary are given in table 3.30. A number of the possessive pronouns have only been found followed by the element -ya,which possibly indicates a predicative function (‘it is mine’, etc.). In a possessive construction in which the pronoun is expressed explicitly, both the possessive pronoun and a possessive prefix are required:

(381) chien-za chin-tic.han-ia [tickan ‘father’] you.PL-G 2P.PL-father-RL ‘your (plural) father’ (San Rom´an 1967: 80)

Nominal plural is indicated by means of a suffix -ckota,176 which can be attached both to nouns and to the third-person pronoun root i-:

176 Compare the Puquina nominal pluraliser -gata (cf. section 3.5). 3.7 The Atacame˜no language 383

Table 3.31 Verbal past-tense paradigm in Atacame˜no (based on San Rom´an 1967)

yocon-tur ‘to speak’

1 pers. sing. acca q’-yocon-a ‘I spoke.’ plur. cuna cun-y´ocon-a ‘We spoke.’ 2 pers. sing. chema se-y´ocon-a ‘You (sing.) spoke.’ plur. chime chin-y´ocon-a ‘You (plur.) spoke.’ 3 pers. sing. ya s’-y´ocon-a ‘He spoke.’ plur. cota et’-y´ocon-a ‘They spoke.’

(382) a. ´ı-cota ∼ i-ckota ‘they’ [´ı.ya ‘he’] b. l´ıqcau-cota ∼ lickau-ckota ‘women’ (San Rom´an 1967: 79, 85)

The prefixes that identify person of subject in a verb are partly coincident with the possessive personal prefixes of the noun. The past-tense paradigm of the verb yockon- tur ‘to speak’, as given by San Rom´an (1967: 86), is presented in table 3.31. The full personal pronouns that precede each verb form were probably optional. As in the case of the possessive prefixes the significance of the apostrophe remains unexplained. The evidence for a third-person-singular marker s’ is weak, because it is not attested in the other third-person subject forms occurring in the data. (One either finds zero, or q’,which may not be a personal person reference marker.) The prefix et’- (note the initial e)isnot found in Va¨ısse et al. The pronominal form cota is an abbreviated variant of ´ı-cota ‘they’. Note in passing the possible diachronic link between the pronouns and the person prefixes. The endings of the past tense are said to be unpredictable (San Rom´an 1967: 86). Other tense and mood categories are indicated by specific endings, where necessary accompanied by morphophonemic adjustments, such as -ma for present tense, -(o)lo for future tense and -(l)s for obligation.

(383) a. acca q’-minij-ma ‘I see’ [minck-tur ‘to see’] b. acca q’-c´olc-olo ‘I will fall’ [ckolck-tur ‘to fall’] c. acca q’-lan-s ‘I will go’ [lan-tur ‘to go’]

Examples of the Atacame˜no imperative appear in Moore (1878) and in the Lord’s Prayer versions transmitted by von Tschudi, but we owe the identification of the ending -k. al(o) as a marker of the imperative to Mostny (1954: 141).177 Another imperative ending found in the Lord’s Prayer versions is -alo. The examples suggest that the former

177 It is likely that a uvular stop is intended to be represented by the symbol k. . 384 3 The Inca Sphere occurred after a vowel (384), whereas the latter was found after bases ending in a consonant (385).

(384) k. ilap´anya a´ıta-k. alo [cf. haita-tur ‘to drink’] ckilapana drink-2S.IM ‘Drink ckilapana!’178 (Mostny 1954: 142) (385) can-alo [cf. ckan-tur ‘to give’] give-2S.IM ‘Give!’ (Tschudi 1866–9, in Echeverr´ıa y Reyes 1967)

The negation of the imperative was expressed by means of a suffix -caˇ - (Mostny 1954: 153). A good example of this construction is again found in the Lord’s Prayer versions (386). The base verb is the Spanish loan dejar ‘to leave’, ‘to abandon’.

(386) cum deja-cha-calo 1O.PL leave-NE-2S.IM ‘Don’t let us (fall into temptation)!’ (Tschudi 1866–9, in Echeverr´ıa y Reyes 1967)

Example (386) also illustrates the use of prefixes or preposed elements referring to person of object, in this case, cum [kun] ‘us’. Va¨ısse et al. mention at least two other elements that are used in this way: ack for first-person-singular object and tchencki for second-person-singular object. One may venture the idea that the latter was in fact a complex form referring to the transition of a first-person subject (cki-) to a second-person object (tchem-). The categories of deverbal nominalisation comprise the characteristic infinitive ending in -tur, amply illustrated in the current section. Doubtless, there are other possibilities, such as those illustrated by the forms l´alack-ma ‘daybreak’ and lalck-tchir ‘light’, both derived from lalck-tur ‘to become light (of days)’ (Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 24). More verbal morphology consists in the existence of a transitive or causative formation involving an element -un-, as in (387):

(387) lalck-tur ‘to become light’ lalack-un-tur ‘to give/make light’ (Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 24)

The existential verb ‘to be’ in Atacame˜no is given as ttanzi [t’ansi] in San Rom´an and as ttansi-r or ttans-tur in Va¨ısse et al. Its negation was expressed by sin(t)cha.

178 Ckilapana:afermented drink made from pods of the algarroba tree (Prosopis chilensis). The ending -ya is not explained in this case. 3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´e language 385

Example (388) from Mostny illustrates this:

(388) t´e sinˇcaot’´ansi tea not.be or be ‘Is there any tea, or not?’ (Mostny 1954: 170)

The SOV word order of Atacame˜no is illustrated in (389). Note the absence of a subject prefix.179 The element -ne- remains unexplained; it may be part of the present- tense ending. There is no case marker for the goal.

(389) acca´ l´ıcan s´aj-ne-ma [lickan ‘town’; sack-tur ‘to go’] Itown go-?-PN ‘I am going to town.’ (San Rom´an 1967: 78)

Case markers and other elements referring to grammatical relations cannot easily be recovered because they are not treated in the sources. Only a few case endings, such as -ckol ‘instrumental’ (Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 19; Mostny 1954: 154) and -p(a)s ‘allative’ (Mostny 1954: 154), have been identified beyond doubt. From a lexical point of view, it is interesting to note that the Atacame˜no language had a full inventory of decimally organised numerals, which also included a non-borrowed term for ‘hundred’: sem(m)a ‘one’, ppoya ‘two’, pp´alama ‘three’, tchalpa [ˇc’alpa] ‘four’, m´utusma (San Rom´an: m´utsisma) ‘five’, m´ıtchala ‘six’, tch´oya [ˇc’oya] ‘seven’, tch´olama [ˇc’´olama] ‘eight’, t´eckara ‘nine’, sutchi ‘ten’, haaras ‘hundred’ (San Rom´an: aras). The connecting element was -ta,asinsuchi-ta ppoya ‘twelve’ (San Rom´an 1967: 80). Atacame˜no had borrowed many lexical items from Quechua, notwithstanding von Tschudi’semphatic denial of such being the case (S´aez Godoy 1971: 20), e.g. ckausa-tur ‘to live’, from Quechua kawsa-, and tussu-tur ‘to dance’, from Quechua tusu- (for other examples see the preceding pages). Borrowings from other languages are represented in tchamma ‘force’, from Aymara c’amaˇ , and in horsa-tur ‘to rape’, from Spanish forzar.

3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´e language The Lule were one of the semi-nomadic peoples who inhabited the Gran Chaco between the Pilcomayo river and the Andean foothills of northwestern Argentina. Their language is known through a grammar and vocabulary published by Machoni de Cerde˜na in 1732. Machoni called his work Arte de la lengua Tonocot´eyLule (Grammar of the Tonocot´e and Lule Language), suggesting that the Lule and Tonocot´e languages were one and the same. This is confusing because in early colonial sources such as the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, I: 390–6; II: 78–85) the two nations

179 According to San Rom´an (1967: 87), the Atacame˜nos ‘used few auxiliaries and abbreviated everything they could’. 386 3 The Inca Sphere and their languages are treated as separate. In the sixteenth century the Tonocot´ewere part of the sedentary indigenous population of the provinces of Tucum´an and Santiago del Estero, now occupied by speakers of the Quechua dialect of the same name (cf. Mart´ınez Sarasola 1992: 549–52). They suffered constant attacks from the Lule. At the beginning of the eighteenth century part of the Lule population had been brought together in a mission in eastern Salta, which was subsequently transferred to a location south of Tucum´an in 1737, where a town called Lules still exists (Furlong 1941). Machoni justifies his procedure by affirming that the language which he describes was spoken by five nations: Tonocot´e, Lule, Ysistin´e, Toquistin´e and Oristin´e. He claims that the Tonocot´e, whom he located in the interior of the Gran Chaco, were the most numerous of the five and had not yet been converted to Christianity in his time. Since the languages of the tribes in question have long been extinct and only one variety has been documented, the question whether Lule and Tonocot´ewere indeed identical, and if not, whether Machoni’s grammar deals with the former or with the latter, may remain open. The view that Machoni’s Lule is genetically related to the moribund or extinct Vilela language of the R´ıo Bermejo basin has received attention since the end of the nineteenth century (Lafone Quevedo 1894a, b, 1895; Balmori 1967). It is probably correct, although the relationship is certainly not a close one (Viegas Barros 2001). There is no easily detectable genetic relationship between Lule–Vilela and the other two main linguistic groups of the Argentinian Chaco, Guaicuruan and Matacoan. There are some similarities with Matacoan, which may be due to contact. Machoni describes a relatively small inventory of sounds consisting of five vowels, a, e, i, o, u and a limited number of consonants. Stress is predominantly word-final.180 The symbol y is used as an equivalent of i, especially when stressed, but also for referring to a semi-consonant. According to Machoni, the main difficulties of Lule pronunciation consist in distinguishing between the sibilants c, c¸, and s and in the existence of complex consonant clusters involving sibilants in word-initial and word-final postion (e.g. quelp¸c [kelpts]‘Ispit’, slimst [slimst] ‘I make a sound with the nose’, oal´ecst [wal´ekst] ‘I know’, stu¸c [stuts]‘Ithrow’). Machoni’s description of the sibilants is not free of contradiction and is therefore hard to interpret. His symbols c, c¸, and apparently also z, seem to stand for a sound which may be identified tentatively as an alveodental affricate [ts]; the language has no ch [ˇc] as in Spanish. However, Machoni adds that in some words the c has to be pronounced as a (Spanish) c¸ or ss (normally the pronunciation of his symbol s). An- other inconsistency in the use of the symbol c is that it can both refer to [ts] and to

180 Word-final accent is usually written with an acute by Machoni. The examples given are in Machoni’s original spelling. 3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´e language 387

[k]. This becomes evident from the different derivations of the imperative, as in uec-y ‘die!’ [wets´ı] from uec-¸c [wetsts]‘Idie’ against poqu-y [pok´ı] ‘dig!’ from poc-¸c [pokts] ‘I dig’. The simplicity of the Lule sound inventory is surprising when we consider the rather complex inventories of the related Vilela language (which has postvelar stops, a voicing distinction and a glottalisation distinction) and of almost all the surrounding languages, including the modern Quechua dialect of Santiago del Estero. It is conceivable that Machoni may have missed such distinctions. There are no indications to that effect, except for the word tt´a ‘egg’, in which the double consonant symbol may point at the existence of glottalisation. On the other hand, the highly informative vocabulary that accompanies Machoni’s grammar contains evidence of voiceless laterals (quilh´a [kil a]´ ‘Indian girl’; cf. Vilela kil e ‘woman’) and, possibly, of a voiceless nasal (nhal´a pul´u ‘sugar cane’). The existence of a glottal stop is suggested by se¸c ∼ s.he¸c [sʔets]‘I support’, in which s and the vowel must be pronounced separately, and se¸c [sets]‘Icry’, in which they are pronounced without interruption. From a superficial point of view, Lule appears to be a typically Andean language with a suffixing structure, a moderately complex morphology and case markers. However, a closer look at the verbs included in Machoni’s Spanish–Lule vocabulary shows that this picture is not entirely correct. These verbs exhibit different sorts of derivational mor- phology including prefixation, compounding and reduplication. There are, for instance, verb sets characterised by a root and different prefixes referring to an instrument or body part with which the action is performed. The root cannot occur without one of these prefixes, nor are these prefixes formally related with corresponding nouns. For instance, the root -calam- ‘to press’ is absent from the vocabulary, except when it occurs with one of the instrumental elements illustrated in (390).

(390) ni-calam- ‘to press with the hands’ cf. ys ‘hand’ yacs-calam- ‘to press with the feet’ cf. ell´u ‘foot’ si-calam- ‘to press with knees or body’ cf. toi- ‘body’ ti-calam- ‘to press the earth (of rain)’ cf. auy´a ‘rain-water’ na-calam- ‘to press the earth (of running water)’ cf. t´o ‘water’

The root -moi- ‘to kill’ is found both with a generic and with an instrumental prefix (391):

(391) tac-moi- ‘to kill’ s-moi- ‘to kill with an arrow or a spear’ nic-moi- ‘to kill (chicken) with the hands’ na-moi- ‘to kill with a string or lasso’ ap-moi- ‘to kill with a bullet’ 388 3 The Inca Sphere

Compounding can be illustrated by the encoding of bodily positions in a verb such as ui- [wi] ‘to sleep’ (392):

(392) lo-ui-181 ‘to sleep while sitting’ cf. lo-, loho-182 ‘to sit (down)’ qui-ui- ‘to sleep while standing’ cf. qui- ‘to stand’ ele-ui- ‘to sleep while lying’ cf. ele- ‘to lie (down)’

Further illustrations of compounding involving verb roots can be observed in (393) and (394):

(393) ti-tuc- ‘to try’ ne-tuc- ‘to try and eat’, ‘to taste’ (394) tic-tun- ‘to finish’ ne-tun- ‘to finish eating’

Note that the common term for ‘to eat’ is not *ne-butcai-. Furthermore, Lule has a wide array of terms for eating depending on what is eaten: e.g. pel- ‘to eat flour’, let- ‘to eat soft fruits’, ues- ‘to eat beans or cabbage’, anc- [ants] ‘to eat soup’. Lule verbs may differ lexically in function of the number (395) or the gender (396) of the subject:

(395) u´os-¸c arrive-1S.SG ‘I arrive’ ual-cen arrive-1S.PL ‘we arrive’ (396) pac- [pats] ‘to carry (of men)’ yes- ‘to carry (of women)’

Reduplication of the initial syllable is found in derived verbal substantives that refer to an instrument, as in (397):

(397) ne-neyu-p´e ‘flute’ cf. neyu- ‘to play the flute’

Verbs are inflected for person and number. The endings which are used for the non- future indicative tenses coincide roughly with the endings indicating person and number of the possessor with nouns. Examples with the verb amaici- ‘to love’ and uy´a ‘house’ are given in table 3.32. The ending of the verbal first person singular varies between -c¸,-s,-t, and zero. The lat- ter two possibilities are used as alternatives after roots ending in a consonant cluster with a final sibilant, as in oal´ecs-t (∼ oal´ecs-¸c, oal´ec-¸c)‘Iknow’ or stops-t (∼stops-¸c, stops)

181 In the examples the symbol v has been replaced by u, because the former is a mere notational variant of the latter. 182 The interpretation of the symbol h between vowels is ambiguous. Apart from indicating a glottal or velar fricative, it can also refer to a glottal stop. 3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´e language 389

Table 3.32 Lule personal endings for unmarked tense and nominal possession

amaici- ‘to love’ uy´a ‘house’

1 pers. sing. amaici-¸c ‘I love.’ uy´a-s ‘my house’ plur. amaici-c´en ‘We love.’ uya-cen ‘our house’ 2 pers. sing. amaici-c´e ‘You (sing.) love.’ uya-c´e ‘your (sing.) house’ plur. amaici-lom ‘You (plur.) love.’ uya-lom ‘your (plur.) house’ 3 pers. sing. amaici-p ‘He/she loves.’ uya-p ‘his/her house’ plur. amaici-p´an ‘They love.’ uya-p´an ‘their house’

Table 3.33 Lule future and imperative verbal paradigms

Future Imperative

1 pers. sing. -n-s – plur. -n-cen -pe, -cen 2 pers. sing. -psse + V, −y plur. -n-(pe)lom -uan 3 pers. sing. -n-t -pep, -to plur. -n-pan -(n-)pan

‘I pour (a liquid)’. The choice between -c¸ and -s appears to be arbitrary. As for substan- tives, Machoni affirms that they normally take -s,but that some take -c¸; e.g. y(h)´a-¸c ‘my brother’. The third-person-singular ending of the verbs has two forms: -p and -t. According to Machoni, the verbs that take -t instead of -p are those that have roots ending in -a-, -e-, -u-, -li- and -qui-, e.g. e-t ‘he sees’, taclu-t ‘he throws’. The Lule verbal system comprises different tenses and moods, as well as devices for subordination and nominalisation, all indicated by means of suffixation. There are no indications of object encoding within the verb. Near and remote past are characterised by the affixes -ni- and -(y)ate-, respectively, which are inserted between the root and the person and number affixes. The imperative and, to a lesser extent, the future paradigm have special endings for person and number. These are represented in table 3.33. Apart from the second-person-singular ending all future endings contain an element -n-. This same element is used to distinguish between an unmarked active participle in -ton and a future active participle in -n-ton, e.g.:

(398) amaici-t`on ‘he who loves’ amaici-n-t`on ‘he who will love’183

183 In this case Machoni uses a grave instead of an acute accent. The reason for it is not known. 390 3 The Inca Sphere

Both participles can be used as finite verbs replacing present-tense and future forms, respectively. The second-person-singular imperative ending consists of a vowel -y after roots ending in a consonant, and a lengthened final vowel after roots ending in a vowel. This is indicated by doubling of the last vowel. It is not sure whether the added vowel was pronounced separately, as vowel length, or that it was merely stressed. There are some irregular imperatives, such as cai ‘go!’, ei ‘see!’ and nei ‘come!’ (from ca-, e- and ne-, respectively).

(399) taclu-´u ‘throw!’ taclup-y ‘turn upside down!’

The subordinate form of the verbs is formed by adding the element -l´e to the unmarked tense of the indicative (e.g. amaici-¸c-l´e ‘when I love’). The element -l´e coincides in form with a case marker that indicates location involving motion (‘into’, ‘from’). The interpretation of the case marker depends on the meaning of the verb or the context. The second l´e in (400) and (401) is described as a part´ıcula de ornato (ornamental particle) by Machoni.

(400) uya-l´el´e ne-¸c house-L – come-1S.SG ‘I come from the house.’ (401) uya-s-l´el´e ca-¸c house-1P.SG-L – go-1S.SG ‘I go to my house’

Lule nouns referring to human beings can be marked for plural, although this is not obligatory. The exact rules of plural formation are difficult to glean from Machoni’s grammar.

(402) cu´e ‘son or daughter’ cu´e-l ‘children’ zal´a ‘young man’ zala-til ‘young people’

Personal possessive endings are added to the plural ending, if any, e.g.:

(403) Pedro cu´e-l-p uy´e Pedro child-PL-3P.SG not.be ‘Pedro has no children.’

As can be seen in (403), the genitive construction is characterised by possession marked on the head. The modifier (possessor) precedes the head and remains unmarked.184 If

184 Adjectives follow the noun they modify, as in t´o ytyps ‘lukewarm water’. 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 391 the head consists of the words p´e ‘father’ or umu´e ‘mother’, the possessive ending -p is left out whenever the possessor is present. If the possessor is not present, the ending is compulsory.

(404) Juan pe-p ‘the father of Juan (not present)’ Juan p´e ‘the father of Juan (present)’

The personal pronouns of Lule are not related to the verbal endings. Some of them, however, can be related to verbal endings in the Vilela language: quis ‘I’, u´e ‘you’, u´a ‘we’, mi-l ‘you (plural)’. In Vilela -ki-s is a first-person-dual or plural verbal ending (singular -ki), whereas -mi refers to a second person singular (Lozano 1977).185 The reflexive pronoun in Lule is formed on the basis of a root lo-towhich personal possessive endings are added. Pronouns used in object function, including the reflexives, are located before the verb.

(405) u´ey´o ne-¸c you take come-1S.SG ‘I have come to take you.’ [y´one- ‘to take’, ‘to fetch’] (406) lo-s tec-¸c [los tekts] self-1P.SG fight-1S.SG ‘I battle’, ‘I fight’

The numeral system of Lule is not typically Andean in that it consists of only four basic items: alape´a ‘one’, tam´op ‘two’, tamlip ‘three’ and locu´ep ‘four’ (cf. lucu´e ‘man’). The numeral locu´ep provides the basis for higher numbers, as in locu´ep moitl´e tamlip ‘seven’ (‘three added to four’) and in locu´ep moitl´e locu´ep alape´a ‘nine’ (‘four added to four one’). The word for ‘ten’ ysyauomp is derived from ys ‘hand’ and yauo´o ‘together’. It is used as a basis for further counting, as in ysav´omp moitl´e tam´op ‘twelve’ (‘two added to ten’). Multipliers precede the number they multiply, as in tamlip ysav´omp ‘thirty’. Lule contains several loan words from Quechua, such as yapa- ‘to add’ (Quechua yapa-), tanta ‘bread’ (Quechua t’anta), tity ‘tin’ (Quechua titi), utc´u ‘cotton’ (Quechua utku). Interesting are several loans from Spanish that have been modified almost beyond recognition, e.g. capl´a ‘goat’ (Spanish cabra), ceual´a ‘millet’ (Spanish cebada), polot´o ‘bean’ (Spanish poroto) and telec´o ‘wheat’ (Spanish trigo).

3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages of the Inca Sphere As anticipated in section 3.1, the Middle Andean region was originally a linguistically diverse area with numerous local languages. The decline of these languages was almost

185 It is interesting to observe that -l, -l and -s also act as nominal pluralisers in Matacoan (Tovar 1981; Gerzenstein 1994). 392 3 The Inca Sphere certainly triggered by the political unification of the area by the Incas, but many of them were still widely spoken when the Spanish conquerors arrived. Much of the linguistic diversity in the Middle Andean region was lost during colonial rule and in the first century of independence. With the exception of the languages treated in the preceding sections 3.4–3.8, all the languages that vanished during that period have remained un- documented. Place names, personal names and, in the best case, short word lists must be relied upon for a reconstruction of some of the characteristics of these languages. Their existence is sometimes confirmed by mentions in the historical literature. For a discussion of these languages we distinguish three relevant areas: Ecuador, northern Peru and northwestern Argentina.

3.9.1 Ecuador In the highlands of Ecuador it is possible to reconstruct much of the original language situation, characterised by a series of distinct language areas that can be identified on the basis of toponymy and other information. In the coastal area this is nearly impossible. Coastal Ecuador was (and is) a densely populated area, but, apart from its northernmost sector (see chapter 2) its linguistic past remains hidden. At the time of the conquest, the ethnic group that inhabited the region of and the lower valley of the Daule river was called Huancavilca (Cieza de Le´on 1553). The Huancavilca were in the habit of removing part of their front teeth, and this is what their name in the native language is reported to have referred to (Velasco 1789). There were intensive trade relations with the islanders of Pun´a and with the inhabitants of the port of T´umbez in northern Peru. Jij´on y Caama˜no (1941: 385–97) and Paz y Mi˜no (1961a) treat all these groups as a linguistic unity, called Atall´an by the latter. Jij´on y Caama˜no adds the language of the area of Manta in the province of Manab´ıtothis complex. He considers the Manab´ı– Huancavilca–Pun´agroup to represent a single language with dialects, belonging to afamily that also comprises Mochica and the Ca˜nar and Puruh´a languages in the highlands further east. Although other classifications (Loukotka 1968) have followed this suggestion, there seems to be no significant empirical evidence for it. Several other groups, such as the Indians of the Car´aquez bay (Manab´ı), the Chono of the Guayas river basin, the Campaces of the upper Daule valley and the Colima (location unclear), have not been associated with the Huancavilca complex. Jij´on y Caama˜no proposes a Barbacoan connection for the latter two, suggesting that the Campaces may have been identical to the Tsafiki-speaking Colorado (cf. section 2.17 ; see also Hartmann 1980). Newson (1995) proposes a similar connection for the Chono. In 1593 the Diocesan Synod of Quito issued an instruction calling for catechisms and confessionaries in the following languages: Quillacinga, Pasto, Puruh´a, Ca˜nar, ‘the language of the plains’ (la de los Llanos) and the Atallana (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 385). Assuming that the Atallana language mentioned in this document was in fact the 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 393

Tall´an language of Piura in present-day Peru (see section 3.9.2), we may identify the ‘language of the plains’ with that of the Huancavilca complex, which could have been predominant in southern coastal Ecuador. Another document of 1605, Descripci´on de la Gobernaci´on de Guayaquil, refers to an extreme linguistic diversity in the Portoviejo area in the province of Manab´ı. The same source reports that in about 1600 Spanish was already becoming the contact language in the coastal area (Hartmann 1980). In the highland part of Ecuador we find a succession of languages, which from north to south are the following: Pasto, Cara, Panzaleo, Puruh´a, Ca˜nar, and a language complex comprising Palta, Malacato, Rabona, Bolona and Xiroa. These languages are mentioned in early sources such as Cieza de Le´on (1553) and the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965). They have been the object of studies by the Ecuadorian scholars Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940, 1941) and Paz y Mi˜no (1940, 1941a, b, 1942, 1961b), whoinventoried recurrent roots and endings, as well as other salient features of these languages that can be deduced from place names, family names and historical accounts. However important their work may be have been, a reassessment of the results following modern techniques and insights is very much needed. Pasto is usually classified with the Barbacoan family, together with its neighbour Cuaiquer or Awa Pit (cf. section 2.17). The (extinct) variety of Muellamu´es (Nari˜no, Colombia), of which a short word list was recorded during the nineteenth century, was clearly related, though not identical, to Awa Pit and had a higher incidence of Quechua loan words (cf. Jij´on y Caama˜no 1940: 197). It may have represented one of the last surviving dialects of the Pasto language. Muellamu´es piar ‘maize’ can be recognised in the place name Piartal, in Carchi province (Ecuador); the interpretation of -tal is ‘rock’ (Paz y Mi˜no 1940). The Pasto territory was situated around the border towns of Tulc´an and Ipiales, striding the Colombian–Ecuadorian border. In Ecuador it included the Andean part of Carchi. Typical elements in Pasto place names are -quer (Mayasquer, Altaquer) and -es (Ipiales, Pupiales, T´uquerres). The language has been replaced by Spanish. The territory of the Cara or Caranqui language extended from the valley of the Mira and Chota rivers to the city of Quito, covering the Andean region situated in the province of Imbabura and in the north that of Pichincha. Important centres in this area are Otavalo, Cayambe and Ibarra (Carangue). In a study of local place and family names, Salomon and Grosboll (1986) show that the Cara linguistic area may have reached the northern outskirts of Quito, where it bordered on the Panzaleo language further south. The area is today inhabited by a dynamic indigenous population speaking a variety of Quechua known as Imbabura Quechua. In particular the people of Otavalo and surrounding villages are known for their rich folklore and economic success. Cara may have been used until well into the eighteenth century (Caillavet 2000: 103), before it became fully replaced by Quechua. A possible substratum element from Cara preserved 394 3 The Inca Sphere in modern Imbabura Quechua is the use of a labial fricative f (from earlier Quechua *ph; cf. section 3.2.5). Place names with characteristic stems and endings, as well as a fair number of family names mentioned in the colonial documents, constitute evidence of the past existence of Cara and give an impression of its phonology. Some endings (e.g. -mued, -pud) are shared with Pasto, suggesting some kind of relationship between the two languages. River names in -p´ı/-b´ı (e.g. Calap´ı, Chulxab´ı) suggest a connection with the Barbacoan languages, where this element has the meaning of ‘water’ or ‘river’. PazyMi˜no (1941a) favours the view that Cara was related to Tsafiki (cf. section 2.17). Among the most frequent endings in place names is -qu´ı [k´ı] (compare Pasto -quer), for instance, in Cochasqu´ı, Pomasqu´ı and Tuntaqu´ı. Caillavet identifies further toponymical elements, such as -puela/-buela ‘field’, -pigal ‘earth ridge’ and -yasel ‘artificial mound (locally known as tola)’. A recurrent element in personal names is ango, identified as ‘lord’. It is found, for instance, in the name of the sixteenth-century cacique of Otavalo, Otavalango,but it also occurs by itself (Caillavet 2000: 28). Unfortunately, there are hardly any Cara forms of which the meaning is known with certainty. One of the very few cases is the element -piro/-biro, identified as ‘lake’ or ‘pond’ in the Relaciones geogr´aficas,which is found in the place names Pimampiro and Tumbabiro (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 236, 248).186 PazyMi˜no (1961a) refers to an (extinct) Cara population on the Ecuadorian coast, near Car´aquez bay (Manab´ı). Presumably, this idea was inspired by Velasco’s controversial account of the Cara or Scyri rulers, who would have invaded the highlands from the coast in pre-Inca times (Velasco 1789). Regardless of the question whether Velasco’s account has any historical basis, there is no reason to assume that the Cara language as we know it from toponymy and historical sources was the product of such a coastal invasion. The Panzaleo language owes its name to the Inca settlement of the same name, situated not far from Quito (cf. Salomon 1986). The Panzaleo area extended from Quito in the north to the town of Mocha in the south, covering the provinces of Cotopaxi and Tungurahua, as well as the southern part of Pichincha. The main centres in the area, apart from Quito itself, are Ambato and Latacunga. The Panzaleo area may have been the first in the Ecuadorian highlands to become thoroughly Quechuanised. Typical toponymical endings of the Panzaleo area are -(h)al´o (Pilal´o, Mulahal´o), -leo (Tisaleo, Pelileo) and -lagua/-ragua (Cutuglagua, Tunguragua). The possibility that the original language of the Quijos Indians, an ethnic group inhabiting the Andean foothills in the western part of the province of Napo, was actually a variety of Panzaleo (as suggested by Cieza de Le´on) is discussed in Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940: 289–95). The evidence is not

186 Translated as ‘great lake’ and ‘bird lake’, respectively. Note, however, that pim´an means ‘bridge’ in Tsafiki (Moore 1962). 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 395 conclusive. Loukotka (1968) in his classification presents Panzaleo as related to P´aez (see section 2.15). One of the sources for this view is Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940: 395–6), who recognises that the evidence is weak and adds that any observed similarities, when valid at all, may be attributed to contact. Puruh´a or Puruguay was once the dominant language in the present-day province of Chimborazo, except in its southernmost section of Alaus´ı and Chunchi, where Puruh´a overlapped with neighbouring Ca˜nar. Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940: 417) leaves open the possibility of an extension into the Chimbos area further west (province of Bol´ıvar), but this idea is not accepted by Paz y Mi˜no (1942). The main centre of the former Puruh´a area is . In spite of this strategic position, the amount of information on the language that has been preserved is disappointingly small. A late seventeenth- century grammar is reported lost. Modern Puruh´a descendants now generally speak Quechua. Family names frequently end in -cela or in -lema. Examples are Duchicela, the lineage of Atahuallpa’s mother, reportedly of Puruh´a descent (Velasco 1789), and Daquilema, the name of a nineteenth-century rebel. Frequent endings of Puruh´a place names are -shi (e.g. Pilligshi), -tus (e.g. Guasunt´us), -bug (e.g. Tulubug). More complex endings are -cahuan, -calpi and -tactu. Some of these elements occur in combination with Quechua roots, as in Supaycahuan (Quechua supay ‘devil’). Puruh´aisgenerally believed to be related to Ca˜nar. Nevertheless, the two languages are kept distinctly apart in the colonial Spanish sources. Some phonological character- istics not usually found in the languages further north are shared by Puruh´a and Ca˜nar, for instance, the use of voiced stops in word-initial position. Another interesting com- mon feature is the existence of a [ˇz] (written zh), which is not demonstrably a reflex of earlier ly (as it is in some Ecuadorian Quechua dialects). It is found word-initially in Ca˜nar place names, e.g. Zhud (R. Howard, pers. comm.). The Ca˜nar language was spoken in the Ecuadorian highlands, in the provinces of Ca˜nar and Azuay, and in parts of southern Chimborazo (Alaus´ı). According to the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 279), it was also used in Saraguro in the northern part of the province of Loja, in spite of the fact that the Indians of Saraguro were hostile to the Ca˜nar people further north. The Ca˜nar people played a crucial role in the history of the Inca empire. After they had been conquered, the Incas embellished their principal town of Tomebamba (Cuenca), which was then destroyed during the civil war between Atahuallpa and Huascar. Many Ca˜nar people were sent to other parts of the empire as mitimaes.Ca˜nar troops were sought out for police tasks and special assignments, which they continued to perform under Spanish rule. The influence of Quechua became particularly strong in the Ca˜nar region. Nevertheless, Ca˜nar continued to be used during the colonial period until it was eventually replaced by Quechua. Today, the main centres of the area are Cuenca, Azogues and Ca˜nar. 396 3 The Inca Sphere

Ca˜nar toponymy is highly characteristic and easier to recognise than that of Puruh´a. Nevertheless, some endings (-pala, -pud,-bug, -shi) are shared by the two languages. Luckily, the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 265, 274– 5, 278, 280) are somewhat more informative about the meaning of Ca˜nar place and family names than about those of other Ecuadorian highland languages. For instance, Leoquina is translated as ‘snake in a lake’; Paute as ‘stone’; Peleusi (or Pueleusi)as‘yellow field’; Pue¸car as ‘broom’. The Jubones river was called Tamalaycha or Tanmalanecha ‘river that eats Indians’. A particularly interesting explanation concerns that of the plain in which the city of Cuenca is situated. It was called Guapdondelic ‘large plain resembling heaven’. This explanation allows an interpretation of quite a few place names, such as Bayandeleg, Chordeleg, etc., which contain the element deleg ‘large plain’. Other place names contain an element del (e.g. in Bayandel), which may have had a related meaning.187 The most frequent ending in place names is -cay [kay]. It has been interpreted as ‘water’ or ‘river’, presumably because of its occurrence in river names, such as Saucay and Yanuncay (Paz y Mi˜no 1961b). Other examples of endings occurring in Ca˜nar place names are -copte (Chorocopte), -hui˜na (Catahui˜na), -turo (Molleturo), -zhuma (Guagualzhuma) and -zol (Capzol). In addition to the original Ca˜nar place names, Quechua names are also frequent. The ending -pamba ‘plain’, for instance, is more common than the native -deleg. In the sixteenth century the province of Loja was inhabited by a number of small ethnic groups, which the Spaniards found difficult to control. The language they spoke was known as Palta. Another language, Malacato,was spoken in a limited area south of the town of Loja. Caillavet (2000: 233) also mentions an enclave of Ca˜nar speakers (Amboca) situated to the northwest of that town. The Palta language had a wide distribution with eastern outliers in the Zamora region and in the area of Ja´en (department of Cajamarca, Peru).188 Furthermore, its use may have extended to the area of Zaruma in the present- day province of El Oro (Caillavet 2000: 216). Today the area, which no longer has a substantial indigenous population, is mainly Hispanophone, with the exception of the Quechua-speaking community of Saraguro in the north. Several observations in the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias seem to indicate that the languages of the area were closely related. It is generally believed that they belonged to the Jivaroan language family. The only Palta words that were recorded are not from Loja, but from a mountainous area called Xoroca not far from Ja´en (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, III: 143). Of these four words (yum´e ‘water’, xeme ‘maize’, capal ‘fire’, let ‘fire- wood’) the three first ones have been recognised as Jivaroan (Gnerre 1975). Many place

187 Bay´an is the name of a shrub. 188 On Ecuadorian maps the area of Ja´en is normally represented as a part of Ecuador, as a result of the boundary conflict between the two countries. 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 397 names in the Loja area end in -anga (Cariamanga), in -numa (Purunuma) or in -nam´a (Cangonam´a, Gonzanam´a). Gnerre (1975) interprets the two latter endings as instances of a Jivaroan locative case marker -num ∼ -nam,whereas Torero (1993a) offers a dif- ferent interpretation by associating the ending -nam´a with Aguaruna nam´ak(a) ‘river’.189 Similar elements are found in place names further east in the area of Zamora, where the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, III: 136–42) mention the existence of three other languages, Bolona, Rabona and Xiroa (possibly a variant of J´ıvaro). For the Rabona language a certain number of vocabulary items, mainly plant names, are listed. Torero (1993a) has identified some of these items as Candoshi (e.g. chicxi ‘sapodilla’, Candoshi c´ˇıˇci(ri)), but others are reminiscent of Aguaruna (e.g. guapuxi ‘large ’, Aguaruna w´ampuˇsik,Wipio Deicat 1996: 140). In spite of the fact that Rivet (1934), Loukotka (1968) and Torero (1993a) have classified the Rabona language as a member of the Candoshi family, we prefer to leave the matter undecided. The affiliations of the Bolona language cannot be known for lack of data; it has been classified as Jivaroan by Loukotka, whereas Torero suggests a connection with Ca˜nar based on the geographical location of Bolona. Few of the communities of the Zamora region mentioned in the early sources have survived, as much of the area was devastated by intensive colonisation during the sixteenth century and by the subsequent Jivaroan uprising (cf. Velasco 1789; Taylor 1999). As a final addition to this discussion of the pre-Quechuan Ecuadorian highland lan- guages, we may observe that, with the exception of the languages of Loja and possibly also of Panzaleo, these languages share a number of distinctive elements that seem to point at a common origin or a long period of interaction at the least. Examples of such elements are words ending in the voiced consonants -d and -g, the ending -pud, and sylla- bles with a complex labial onset (mue, pue, bue).190 The fact that Pasto, with its probable Barbacoan affinity, is one of the languages exhibiting these shared characteristics seems to suggest a Barbacoan connection for this whole group of languages. Although far from being proven, such a connection is more likely than the alleged relationship with Mochica advocated by Jij´on y Caama˜no.

3.9.2 Northern Peru In seventeenth-century sources the northern Peruvian Andes and coast are singled out as a multilingual area that resisted Quechuanisation. Blas Valera, cited in Garcilaso de

189 The usual meaning of nam´ak(a) in the Jivaroan languages is ‘fish’, but in Aguaruna it has the additional meaning of ‘river’. 190 Complex labial onsets are also found in Awa Pit (Curnow 1977: 34), where labial consonants have a labial off-glide before the high central vowel ([pw ], [mw ]). Allophonic labial off-glides following labial consonants have furthermore been encountered in Muisca (section 2.9.2), in Shuar and in Yanesha (chapter 4). 398 3 The Inca Sphere la Vega (1609, Book 7, chapter 3), reports that the Quechua language was ‘unknown in the administrative domain of Trujillo and other provinces belonging to the jurisdiction of Quito’. The present situation and the little we know of past linguistic developments in northern Peru give support to Valera’s impression. A number of non-Quechuan native languages survived the conquest, giving way to Spanish often as late as in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. On the other hand, Quechua is not absent from the area. It has survived in three distinct areas of northern Peru (see sections 3.1, 3.2.3), and it was certainly more widely used in the sixteenth century (Rivet 1949: 2–3). The near absence of documentation concerning the non-Quechuan languages of north- ern Peru is striking. Except for the cases of Mochica and Chol´on, there are neither gram- mars, nor dictionaries of these languages, not even the sort of religious texts that Spanish priests considered necessary for evangelisation (cf. Adelaar 1999). An essential source is Bishop Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on (1985 [1782–90]), who provided word lists of 43 items each for nine languages spoken in his diocese (figure 1): Castilian (Spanish); Quechua; the Yunga language of the provinces of Trujillo and Sa˜na (Mochica, see section 3.4); the languages of Sechura, Col´an and Catacaos in the province of Piura (Sechura and Tall´an); the Culli language of the province of ; and the languages of the Hivitos and Cholones of the Huailillas missions (Hibito and Chol´on, see section 4.11). The most comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the colonial language map of northern Peru is found in Torero (1986, 1989, 1993a). In this context a distinction should be made between languages effectively mentioned in the sources and those whose former existence is merely assumed on the basis of clusters of place and family names with shared characteristics. Among the well-attested languages are those of the coastal plain of the . One of these languages, known as Sechura, has been associated with the port of Sechura at the mouth of the Piura river. A second language or language group, generally kown as Tall´an,was found along the Chira river, including the coastal towns of Col´an and Paita, and along the middle course of the Piura river, where it was spoken, among other places, in the important indigenous community of Catacaos (near the town of Piura). Ramos Cabredo (1950) provides an extensive list of place names, family names and native words still in use in the Tall´an area. Typical endings for place names are -l´a, -r´a (e.g. Narigual´a, Tangarar´a) and -ura (as in Nonura, Piura, Sechura). Family names often end in -lup´u (Belup´u, Sirlup´u), in -bal´u∼-gual´u (Cutibal´u, Mangual´u), in -naqu´e (Lequernaqu´e, Yamunaqu´e) and in -cherre (Pacherre, Tupucherre). The word lists included in Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on exemplify the so-called ‘languages of Col´an and Catacaos’, as well as ‘the language of Sechura’. The Col´an and Catacaos lists represent closely related varieties, possibly dialects of the same language. A notable difference between the two is that Catacaos often features a final element -chim on nouns, whereas the Col´an equivalents only have a nasal (e.g. Catacaos puruchim, Col´an Patrimonio Nacional, Madrid C  in his diocese. Copyright on’s word lists of 43 items each for nine languages spoken n´ Figure 1 Mart´ınezCompa˜

399 400 3 The Inca Sphere purum˜ ‘sister’). Another interesting correspondence is phonological. Col´an syllable- initial dl (possibly a voiced lateral affricate) is either d or l in Catacaos (e.g. Col´an dlacati, Catacaos lacatu ‘to die’; Col´an dlur˜um, Catacaos durum ‘earth’).191 Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on’s Sechura list represents a separate language, because only about 30 per cent of the vocabulary items show a similarity with either Col´an or Catacaos (Torero 1986: 532). Among the possible cognates we find Sechura lactuc, Col´an dlacati, Catacaos lacatu ‘to die’; Sechura colt, Catacaos ccol ‘meat’; Sechura nangru˜ , Col´an nag ([naŋ]?), Catacaos nam ‘moon’; Sechura fic, Catacaos vic ‘wind’; Sechura yaibab, Col´an yaiau, Catacaos yeya ‘bird’. In 1863 Richard Spruce obtained from a native speaker in Piura a list of 38 words which was later published by von Buchwald (1918). It has been identified as a sam- ple of the Sechura language on the basis of a comparison with Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on’s word lists (Torero 1986: 542). The available data suggest that Sechura was a suffixing language. Kinship terms often contain the elements -ma and -˜ni (e.g. Spruce nosma˜ , Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on nos˜˜ ni ‘son or daughter’), which were possibly possessive endings. Sechura verbs as listed in Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on usually end in -(u)c (e.g. unuc ‘to eat’, nic ‘to cry’). Rivet (1949) treats Sechura and Tall´an as a single language, which he calls Sek, adopting the denominaton Sec introduced by Calancha (1638). This procedure is justly rejected by Torero (1986). However, the possibility of a language family, including both Sechura and Tall´an (Col´an–Catacaos), must remain open, considering the limited number of vocabulary items that are available. A possible extension of the Sechura language was found in the desert oasis of Olmos in the present-day department of Lambayeque. When referring to the Sec language, Calancha observed that the people of Olmos ‘change letters and endings’ (mudan letras y finales). Although the name ‘Sec’ could also have referred to the Tall´an language, later ethnographic research by Br¨uning (1922) gives support to the idea of a special connection between Olmos and Sechura suggested by oral tradition and the coincidence of weaving terminology. For a detailed discussion see Torero (1986), who ventures the idea that a Callahuaya-type situation may have existed in Olmos (cf. section 3.5). Finally, the linguistic unity of Olmos and Sechura–Tall´an is confirmed in an archival document of 1638 enumerating the administrative and religious divisions of the northern Peruvian coastal region (Ramos Cabredo 1950: 53–5). The original language situation in the interior highland part of the department of Piura with its centres Ayavaca and Huancabamba is difficult to reconstruct. Today its predominantly indigenous population is reported to be Spanish-speaking. During the colonial period Quechua may have been the dominant language in that area, as was

191 It may be assumed that the difference between -um˜ and -um˜ reflects an inconsistency in Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on’s orthography. 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 401 also the case further east in Tabaconas, in the area descending towards the Amazon (Torero 1993a), and in the Huambos area further south in the department of Cajamarca. A systematic investigation of place names and family names in eastern Piura remains a task for the future. Another well-attested language in northern Peru is Culli (or Culle). Culli was once the dominant language in the Andean hinterland of the coastal town of Trujillo. Its former area comprises four provinces of the department of La Libertad (Julc´an, Otuzco, Santiago de Chuco and S´anchez Carri´on), the province of Cajabamba (department of Cajamarca) and the province of Pallasca (department of Ancash). Pallasca was part of the colonial province of Conchucos,which also included Quechua-speaking areas in northern and eastern Ancash. The Culli translation of Conchucos is ‘water land’ (co˜n ‘water’, chuco ‘land’). The Mara˜n´on river valley constituted the eastern border of the Culli-speaking area. To the southwest it bordered on the Quingnam language of the Trujillo coastal plain (see section 3.4). Further extensions of the Culli language in Ancash and Cajamarca, as well as the possibilities of overlap with other languages, are controversial. The main historical centre of the Culli-speaking people was the town of Huamachuco, now the capital of S´anchez Carri´on province. It was the seat of an important religious cult to the creator god Ataguju and the thunder god Catequil. In spite of violent persecution by the Incas, the Huamachuco cult was still vigorous when the Spaniards arrived. The Augustinian friars Juan de San Pedro and Juan del Canto, who soon after the conquest attempted to convert the local population, wrote a detailed account of local beliefs and customs, in which a Huamachuco language and several native names and terms are mentioned (Castro de Trelles 1992). Towards the end of the sixteenth century a travel account by Toribio de Mogrovejo, archbishop of Lima, of his visit to the area refers to a language called Linga or Ilinga (cf. Rivet 1949). Notwithstanding the fact that these terms seem to represent modified versions of lengua del Inga ‘language of the Inca’, the geographic setting indicates that only Culli could be meant. The earliest mention of the name Culli itself is found in the abovementioned document of 1638 published in Ramos Cabredo (1950). For a historical overview of the Culli language and its speakers see Silva Santisteban (1982). The primary sources for Culli are two word lists. One list of 43 words, referring to the Culli language of the province of Huamachuco, is found in Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on (1985 [1782–90]), whereas the other was collected around 1915 in a hamlet called Aija near Cabana in the province of Pallasca by a local parish priest, father Gonz´alez. This list of 19 words was published in Rivet (1949: 4–5).192 In recent years, a number of students from the area (Flores Reyna 1996; Andrade Ciudad 1999; Manrique 2000; Pantoja

192 We have obtained the information concerning the place of origin of the Gonz´alez list from the field notes of Walter Lehmann, kept at the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. 402 3 The Inca Sphere

Alc´antara 2000) have succeeded in expanding the lexical data base of the Culli language by collecting words and expressions still in use today. Flores Reyna reports that Culli was spoken by at least one family in the town of Tauca (Pallasca province) until the middle of the twentieth century. Although Culli has been replaced by Spanish, the possibility that speakers survive in remote villages cannot be ruled out entirely (cf. Adelaar 1988). The ethnolinguistic atlas published by Chirinos Rivera (2001) contains several mentions of municipalities in the Culli area for which the census of 1993 reports the existence of speakers of an unidentified native language. In spite of the extremely scanty data it is possible to tentatively determine a number of characteristics of the Culli language. In compounds a modifying element precedes the head, like in Quechua. Verb forms as given by Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on all end in a suffix -`u ([u]∼ [w]), e.g. canqui`u ‘to laugh’, collap`ˇ u ‘to die’ (see below for a possible interpreta- tion of the diacritic on cˇ ). The language may have had prefixes for possessive personal reference considering the fact that several kinship terms feature an initial velar stop (viz. quin`u ‘father’, quimit ‘brother’, ca˜ni ‘sister’). Possibly, the same element is found in quiyaya,aform of ritual singing, which may contain the word yaya ‘god’.193 Like Quechua and Aymara, the language may have had a three-vowel system (a, i, u). The oc- currence of mid vowels (e, o)islimited and seems to be favoured by the neighbourhood of c, qu, g,nomatter if the latter occur in clusters or by themselves (e.g. mosˇc´ar ‘bone’, ogˇoll ‘child’, co˜n ‘water’; Quesquenda ‘a place name’). It suggests that the language may have had a velar–postvelar opposition, an assumption fed by the fact that Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on often uses a haˇcek-style diacritic when c and g are adjacent to a mid vowel or a. Other instances of mid vowels (especially o) are found in the environment of r (e.g. in the place name Choroball) and in contexts in which vowel harmony appears to play a role (e.g. in Chochoconday, the name of a mountain). Variation between mid and high vowels is frequent in place names (e.g. Sanagor´an, Candigur´an; Corgorguida, Llaugueda). A characteristic feature of Culli is that the second member in a compound often begins with a voiced stop, producing internally dissimilar consonant clusters when the first member ends in a voiceless consonant (for instance, in place names such as Chiracbal and Ichocda). If the same element occurs independently or in initial position it has a voiceless stop. Compare, for instance, Chusg´on (a river name) and Conchucos (both con- taining the element con∼-gon ‘water’); also Parasive and Pushvara.Frequent endings of Culli place names are -day∼-tay ‘mountain’, -chugo∼-chuco ‘earth’, -gon∼-go˜n ‘water’, -gueda ∼-guida∼-queda ‘lake’, -gur´an∼-gor´an ‘river’, -pus ∼-pos ‘earth’; the elements

193 The analysis of qu(i)- as a prefix is, however, contradicted by the fact that some early Culli family names contain the element quino (Pantoja Alc´antara 2000). In addition, Torero (1989: 225) recognises the element quin`u in the divinity name paiguinoc ‘lord of the guinea-pigs’ mentioned in the Augustinian chronicle. Note also that quiyaya appears as quillalla in Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on. 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 403

-bal∼-ball, -bara∼-huara∼-vara, -chal, -da∼-ta, -gal∼-galli∼-calli, -ganda, -maca, -sicap∼-s´acap(e) ∼-ch´acap(e), all of undetermined meaning; and the borrowed ele- ments -malca ‘village’ and -pamba ‘plain’ (from Quechua -marka and -pampa, respec- tively). For an extensive list of Culli place names see Torero (1989). Place names com- bining a Culli element with a Quechua or a Spanish element (Mumalca,194 Naopamba, Cruzmaca) are frequent and indicate that these languages must have coexisted for a considerable time. From a phonological point of view, it is possible to distinguish several dialect areas. Place names in the province of Pallasca and neighbouring parts of Santiago de Chuco ex- hibit endings with the palatal final consonants -˜n [ny] and -ll [ly] (e.g. Acogo˜n, Camball) whereas non-palatal endings appear elsewhere (e.g. Chusg´on, Marcabal). The distribu- tion of palatal and non-palatal endings coincides with the geographical distribution of the lexical endings -day and -ganda as noted by Torero (1989: 226). The Culli word lists show a relatively high incidence of Quechua loans (e.g. aycha, Qu. ayˇca ‘meat’; challuˇa, Qu. calˇ ywa ‘fish’; cuhi, Qu. kuˇsi ‘pleasure’). The item mi`u ‘to eat’ appears to reflect a hypothetical pre-Quechua *mi-,which can be reconstructed on the basis of modern Quechua miku- ‘to eat’ and miˇci- ‘to herd’. Other items, however, show no relationship with Quechua whatsoever and suggest that the language is genetically independent. Similarities with the Piuran languages and Mochica are also limited (cum`u, Col´an c˜um ‘to drink’; chuip, Catacaos chupuchup ‘star’; paihaˇc, Mochica pey ‘herb’). They may be due to contact. The department of Cajamarca has a dense, predominantly indigenous population. The accounts of colonial inspection visits (visitas)tothis area (Remy and Rostworowski de Diez Canseco 1992) feature a wide variety of family names reflecting the existence of several unidentified languages. The toponymy is also highly varied and exotic. Never- theless, only Quechua has survived in a small number of well-defined localities. Interest- ingly, (Quesada Castillo 1976a, b) contains a substantial amount of non-Quechuan vocabulary. In Pantoja Alc´antara’s study of the Culli linguistic heritage in the Spanish of Santiago de Chuco, an area quite distant from Cajamarca, the follow- ing correspondences between Santiago de Chuco Spanish and Cajamarca Quechua have come to light:

Santiago de Chuco Spanish Cajamarca Quechua cukakeˇ sukaki ˇ ‘headache with nausea’ curgap(e)ˇ cur ˇ ʁap ‘cricket’ dasdas dasdas ‘hurry up!’ inam inap ‘rainbow’

194 The meaning of mu is ‘fire’; the other Culli elements have not been identified. 404 3 The Inca Sphere

kaduly kaˇsul ‘toasted maize’ kunguly kulk´ul ‘tadpole’ lambake lambax. ‘tasteless’ mindz˙o mundz˙u ‘navel’ sayapeˇ .s ˇayaϕ ‘a plant name’ sirak(e)ˇ sirax ˇ . ‘a plant name’ udzˇum uˇsun ‘(honey of) wild bee’

These and other examples suggest the existence of a Culli substratum in the area now covered by Cajamarca Quechua, in particular in the district of Chetilla, where some of the above items were recorded. A linguistic link between Cajamarca and the Culli area is explicitly mentioned by Cieza de Le´on (1553, chapter 81) when he observes that ‘the province of Huamachuco is similar to that of Cajamarca, and that the Indians have the same language and dress the same way’.195 However, in a careful analysis of Cajamarcan place names, Torero (1989) concludes that Culli could not have been the language of the department of Cajamarca because, apart from its southeasternmost province of Cajabamba, the characteristic Culli toponymy is not predominant there. Instead, he distinguishes two toponymical areas, each characterised by the frequent occurrence of a particular ending in place names, and takes them to have represented two hypothetical languages. One area, defined by the ending -den and its variants -don, -ten and -ton,covers the western and central highlands of the department of Cajamarca (including part of the newly formed province Gran Chim´uofthe department of La Libertad), with east- ward extensions reaching the river Mara˜n´on to the north of Celend´ın and in the val- ley of the river Crisnejas. To the south the Chicama, Chuquillanqui and San Jorge rivers constitute a boundary separating the -den area from areas with typical Culli to- ponymy (cf. Krzanowski and Szemi´nski 1978). Torero associates the language repre- sented by the -den area with the pre-Inca kingdom of Guzmango, which was centred in the province of Contumaz´a (southwest Cajamarca). Espinoza Soriano (1977: 449, 456) found three indigenous words in a report commissioned by a member of the Guzmango royal lineage, Sebasti´an Ninaling´on, curaca (chieftain) of Xaxad´en. Ac- cording to Torero (1989: 232), these three words (nus ‘lady’, losque ‘young girl’, mizo ‘female servant’) are attributable to the -den language. Further research is needed in order to explain the contradiction between the absence of Culli place names in western Cajamarca and the presence of a sizeable amount of Culli lexicon in the Quechua of that same area.

195 ‘La provincia de Guamachuco es semejable a la de Caxamalca y los indios son de una lengua ytraje ...’ 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 405

The second toponymical area, defined by the ending -cat(e) and its variants -cot(e), -gat(e) and -got(e), includes the town of Cajamarca and stretches out in a triangular shape towards the Mara˜n´on river, covering parts of the provinces of Cajamarca, Celend´ın and San Marcos. It also includes a stretch of land in the northern provinces of Cutervo and Chota. As Torero observes, the ending -cat and its variants are found throughout most of northern Peru. The same holds for a few other endings occurring in the area at issue (-can, -con, -gan, -gon, -uran). It appears that the -cat area, as defined above geographically, is a toponymical default area characterised by a low incidence of -den endings and other recognisable toponymy (although there is a substantial cluster of Culli place names not far from Celend´ın). Torero (1989: 236–7) ventures the idea that -cat (∼-cot)mayhave had the meaning of ‘water’ or ‘river’. In that case, a further comparison with the Chol´on language of the Huallaga basin would be in order. Torero notes that the place name Salcot,which occurs at least three times in Cajamarca, is formally identical to Zalcot,a Chol´on village meaning ‘black water’ in that language. The Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, III: 143–6) contain a document entitled Relaci´on de la tierra de Ja´en (Account of the Land of Ja´en). It offers a detailed description of the complex language situation in the area surrounding the bend of the Mara˜n´on or Upper Amazon in the northern part of the present-day departments of Amazonas and Cajamarca. This document has been analysed in Rivet (1934) and in Torero (1993a). It registers the existence of a particular language called the language of Sacata. Other sources associate the people of Sacata (or Z´acata) with a well-organised ethnic group, the Chillao, who inhabited opposite banks of the Mara˜n´on valley near Cujillo (province of Cutervo) and Yam´on (province of Utcubamba, Amazonas). Only three Sacata words are mentioned in the Relaci´on: unga ‘water’, umague ‘maize’ and chichache ‘fire’. On this basis Rivet proposed a relationship with the Candoshi languages, whereas Torero opts for an Arawakan connection. The factual basis is insufficient for either conclusion. The bottom of the Mara˜n´on valley between the mouths of its tributaries Chamaya and Utcubamba, and the lower reaches of the valleys of these two rivers (province of Bagua, Amazonas; province of Cutervo, Cajamarca) were inhabited by an ethnic group called Bagua (Torero) or Patag´on de Bagua (Rivet). Three words of this language are mentioned: tuna ‘water’, lancho ‘maize’ and nacx´e ‘come here’. Although tuna coincides with the word for ‘water’ in many Cariban languages, the evidence is not sufficient to allow any reliable classification. The area of Old Ja´en, Perico and Tomependa (province of Bagua, Amazonas; province of Ja´en, Cajamarca) on the left bank of the Mara˜n´on near its confluence with the Chinchipe was inhabited by a population called the Patag´on (or Patag´on de Perico in Rivet’s terminology). The four words that have been recorded, tun´a ‘water’, an´as ‘maize’, viue ‘firewood’ and coar´a ‘sheep’ (here to be interpreted as ‘sloth’), indicate 406 3 The Inca Sphere a northern Cariban affinity, for instance, with Carijona or with one of the languages of the Roraima region (Torero 1993: 451). Another group, the Tabancale, inhabited the village of Aconipa in an elevated area near the upper reaches of the Chinchipe river, approximately in the border area of Ecuador (province of Zamora-Chinchipe) and Peru (province of San Ignacio, Cajamarca). Five words of their language have been recorded: yema ‘water’, moa ‘maize’, oyme ‘firewood’, lalaque ‘fire’ and tie ‘house’. Their language must remain unclassified because these words do not exhibit any significant affinity with other known languages. Still another unclassified language was spoken in the villages of Copall´en (today Copall´ın), Llanque and Las Lomas del Viento. They were situated on a plateau dominat- ing the Utcubamba river east of Bagua (provinces of Bagua and Utcubamba, Amazonas). Of this language of Copall´en the following words have been recorded: quiet ‘water’, chumac ‘maize’, olaman ‘firewood’ and ismare ‘house’. Apart from a similarity between its word for ‘water’ and the element -cat treated above, nothing can be said about the genetic affinities of this language. The Chirino constituted one of the principal ethnic groups in the area, occupying parts of the valley of the Chinchipe river and a vast territory extending east of it. Their language has been identified as a member of the Candoshi family (Rivet 1934, Torero 1993a). The four words of this language that were recorded in the Relaci´on de la tierra de Ja´en are yungo ‘water’, yugato ‘maize’, xum´as ‘firewood’ and paxquiro ‘grass’. For the Jivaroan-speaking Xoroca see section 2.9.1. All the languages found in the region of Bagua and Ja´en in the sixteenth century disappeared at an early stage. The region north of the Mara˜n´on is now partly occupied by Aguaruna and other . The pre-Inca native peoples of the highlands of the department of Amazonas (capital Chachapoyas), situated east of the Mara˜n´on river, were known as the Chachapoya. Impressive ruined cities such as Cu´elap and Gran Vilaya are witnesses of important past cultural developments in this remote area. After being conquered by the Incas, a large portion of the Chachapoya were taken away to other areas of the Inca empire, for instance, to the surroundings of Cuzco and Quito, whereas Quechua-speaking mitimaes were sent to the Chachapoyas region. The original language of the region is sometimes referred to as Chacha.Itisnearly unknown, although some of its most conspicuous characteristics could be recovered from local place names and family names. Zevallos Qui˜nones (1966) collected several hundred Chachapoya family names from colonial documents. Taylor (1990a) has compared these names with present-day family names recorded by him in the Chachapoyas region. Several of the colonial names are still in use. As a result of transmigration, Chachapoya family names were also found in other parts of the former Inca empire, for instance, in Quito, where one Juan Yoplachacha was found among the Chachapoya mitimaes (Salomon 1986: 160); cf. the Chachapoya family name Yoplac.Taylor observes that many Chachapoya names are monosyllabic 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 407

(Cam, Hob, Oc∼Occ, Sup, Yull). Others are formed by the repetition of a monosyllabic element (Pispis, Solsol), or consist of a combination of elements (Detquis´an, Subsolsol, Visalot). Voiced stops could occur word-initially (Det, Buelot, Gaslac), suggesting that there was an opposition between voiced and voiceless stops in that environment. Initial consonants often appear to be palatalised or velarised (for instance, in Guiop [gyop] and in the place name Cu´emal [kwemal]),´ although an interpretation in terms of rising diph- thongs is also possible. The only frequent non-rising diphthong was uy (e.g. Puyqu´ın). The language seems to have distinguished at least five vowels (a, e, i, o, u). Taylor reports that the pronunciation of some Chachapoya family names was modified due to the radical phonetic changes that affected the local Quechua that eventually replaced the Chachapoya language (and is now itself nearing extinction); for instance, the name Surueque or Zuruec became s´urix in Quechua. Only in a very few cases could the mean- ing of a name or of one of its constituents be traced. Taylor reports that the name Oc(c) [ox] may have meant ‘puma’ or ‘bear’ according to an oral tradition of the village of La Jalca. Frequent endings in place names are -huala, -lap(e) and -mal (e.g. Shucahuala, Cu´elap, Yulmal). Taylor tentatively interprets these elements as ‘mountain’, ‘fortress’ and ‘plain’ on the basis of the type of location they usually refer to. An additional end- ing -lon is mentioned by Torero (1989). Taylor, furthermore, notes the occurrence of the endings -gach(e), -gat(e) and -gote (e.g. Sh´ıngache, T´ongate), and suggests that these could mean ‘river’, ‘water’. Note the striking parallelism with Hibito kaˇci and Chol´on kot ‘water’, ‘river’ (cf. section 4.11.1), and remember the discussion of the hypothetical -cat language of Cajamarca. The extension of the Chachapoya language area is a matter that remains to be in- vestigated. In the department of Amazonas it may have included the provinces of Bongar´a, Chachapoyas, Luya, Rodr´ıguez de Mendoza and part of Utcubamba. In addi- tion, the language may well have been used in parts of Cajamarca, in the area of Bol´ıvar (ex-Cajamarquilla) in the department of La Libertad, and in the northwest and west of the department of San Mart´ın (where the ruins of Gran Pajat´en, located in a depopu- lated forest area, may have had connections with the ancient ). The possibility of connections with Hibito–Chol´on, the language of Copall´en and the -cat language would be worth investigating if the data were not so scarce.

3.9.3 Northwestern Argentina In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Andean region of northwestern Argentina was the home of a large ethnic group, the Diaguita, subdivided into numerous subtribes (Calchaqu´ı, Capay´an, Hualf´ın, Paccioca, Pular, Quilme). They occupied an extensive area, including the provinces of Catamarca and La Rioja and the Andean parts of the provinces of Salta and San Juan. They also inhabited parts of the pre-Andean provinces of 408 3 The Inca Sphere

Santiago del Estero and Tucum´an, which they shared with the Tonocot´e (cf. section 3.8). One of their most famous strongholds were the Calchaqu´ıvalleys (Valles Calchaqu´ıes), which extend from north to south in the provinces of Salta, Tucum´an and Catamarca. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the name Diaguita was often used in a nar- rower sense, referring to the inhabitants of Catamarca and La Rioja but excluding the inhabitants of the Calchaqu´ıvalleys. In a letter dated 1594 the Jesuit missionary Alonso de Barzana gives a detailed de- scription of the ethnic situation in northwestern Argentina and of the languages that were spoken there (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 78–86). He reports that the language of the Diaguita was called Caca,aname subsequently modified to Kak´an. Barzana was the author of a grammar of the Kak´an language, which has not survived. Between 1630 and 1660, as a reaction to Spanish exploitation, the Diaguita united in a series of rebel- lions, headed in their final phase by an Andalucian adventurer Pedro Boh´orquez, who had assumed the title of ‘Inca’ (Piossek Prebisch 1976; Isabel Hern´andez 1992). After their defeat most of the Diaguita were deported to other areas. The Calchaqu´ıvalleys were entirely depopulated. The Quilme tribe, which had fought particularly bravely, was relocated in what is now the town of Quilmes near Buenos Aires. Others were distributed as servants to Spanish colonists. Mainly as a result of these events, the Kak´an language soon became extinct. Although almost nothing is known of the Kak´an language, personal names and to- ponymy are well represented. For the names of chiefs participating in the Boh´orquez rebellion see Piossek Prebisch (1976: 109) or Isabel Hern´andez (1992: 160). Diaguita place names are found along the Andes in an area extending approximately from Jujuy to Mendoza; for an inventory see Mart´ın (1964). Lozano (1874–5) provides an explana- tion for some elements of frequent occurrence, such as the ending -ahaho∼ -ahao∼ -ao meaning ‘village’ or ‘town’, which usually follows the name of an ethnic subgroup or a chief (e.g. Anguinahao, Colalao, Luracatao). A further example of this ending is found in the place name Tuc(u)manaha(h)o, named after a chief who also gave his name to the town and province of Tucum´an (Nardi 1979: 11). Another ending meaning ‘village’ or ‘town’ is -gasta (e.g. in Antofagasta,196 Payogasta, Tinogasta). It is one of the most characteristic endings throughout the Argentinian northwest, but it has been attributed to Tonocot´ebyLozano. Whereas Mart´ın assigns the -gasta ending to southern Diaguita, Nardi (1979: 7) keeps open the possibility that it may indeed have been a borrowed element, because its area of distribution is wider than that of the Kak´an language alone. Serrano (1936) remarks that the endings -ao/-ahaho and -gasta often occur attached to

196 The Chilean town of Antofagasta,which dates from the middle of the nineteenth century, was presumably named after the old mining settlement Antofagasta de la Sierra, situated in the highlands (puna)ofthe province of Catamarca (Argentina). 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 409 the same root (e.g. Amanao/Amangasta, Tucumanao/Tucumagasta), suggesting that the endings could have been switched at a certain point. A genuine Kak´an ending is -vil (e.g. in Quimivil, Yocavil), which appears to be related with notions like ‘water’. Nardi (1979) provides the most comprehensive overview of what we know about Kak´an. He observes that most of the colonial authors who had access to this lan- guage emphasise its guttural and ‘strangely difficult’ character. Kak´an probably had postvelar fricatives, both voiced and voiceless. This can be deduced from the fact that the Quechua dialect of Santiago del Estero has some vocabulary derived from a non- Quechuan substratum (probably Diaguita) in which these sounds occur (e.g. wax. alu ‘a type of ant’, oˇcoʁ o ‘an aquatic bird’). Many Diaguita names contain f (as in the place names Famatina and Cafayate; and in Ficpam, the name of a chief); palatal consonants (cˇ, sˇ, ly, ny) are particularly frequent. The presence of r and a contrast between voiced and voiceless stops are both uncertain. The materials included in Nardi’s article show a low incidence of mid vowels, suggesting that the language may have had a three-vowel system like Aymara and Quechua. By combining all possible information Nardi man- aged to identify a few lexical items, such as ango/anco ‘water’, huilla ‘hare’, ismi ‘bird’, mampa ‘irrigation canal’, talca ‘’, tancol ‘arrow’ and zupca ‘place of sacrifice’ (mentioned in Lozano 1754–55, II: 295). He, furthermore, ventures the opinion that in Kak´an adjectives may have followed the noun they modify, as in Angualasto, the name of a river which today is called R´ıo Blanco (hypothetically, ango walasto ‘white water’). There is evidence that the Kak´an language was subdivided into dialects. The Capay´an variety of the La Rioja area has been mentioned as a separate language for which interpreters were needed (Cabrera 1917; Canals Frau 1946). Another dialect name, Yacampis,may have referred to the dialect of the Diaguita heartland in Catamarca or to that of the Calchaqu´ıvalleys. Nardi (1979) holds the view that the differences between these varieties were only dialectal, although he admits the possibility of a division between a northern dialect including the Calchaqu´ıvalleys and a southern dialect comprising most of Catamarca and La Rioja. According to tradition, the Diaguita domain extended into northern Chile covering the actual area of Copiap´o, Vallenarand La Serena in the regions of Atacama and Coquimbo. Atowninthe valley of Elqui still bears the name of Diaguita. However, the first Spanish visitors to the area found a great linguistic variety on their journey southward through northern Chile. Ger´onimo de Bibar (1558), the chronicler of Pedro de Valdivia’sChilean expedition, reports that the inhabitants of the valleys of Copiap´o and Huasco (Atacama region) spoke closely related languages, but that the Indians of Coquimbo and Limar´ı (Coquimbo region) each had their own languages. The Chilean Diaguita have left very few traces, even in the toponymy. In the extreme northwest of Argentina, in the western parts of the provinces of Jujuy and Salta, a presence of the Atacame˜no language and culture is attested. Local 410 3 The Inca Sphere groups are known as Apatama, Casabindo, Churumata and Cochinoca. The Quebrada de Humahuaca,avalley which crosses the heart of Jujuy province from north to south, is believed to have had its own language (Loukotka 1968), which is usually referred to as Humahuaca (or Omaguaca). There is hardly any linguistic information on this group, which apparently was subdivided into several smaller units called Fiscara, Jujuy, Ocloya, Osa, Purmamarca and Tiliar (Isabel Hern´andez 1992: 127). The name of Viltipoco, the ruler of Tilcara, who resisted the Spaniards in the sixteenth century, and the local sur- name Vilte suggest a connection with the Atacame˜no language. In Atacame˜no bilti means ‘falcon’. 4

The languages of the eastern slopes

As the alter ego of strolls through Florence, trying to put all matters Peruvian out of his mind in order to read Machiavelli and Dante, he stumbles onto an exhibit of dusty photographs of the Machiguenga. In El hablador (The Speaker; 1987), documentary and novel, this nation plays a central role, one of the countless groups of Indians struggling in small bands on the eastern foothills of the Andes and on the Amazonian plains, in order to maintain their cultural and linguistic integrity. This chapter will try to give a necessarily brief account of the very diverse languages of these groups. Since it is impossible to say precisely where the slopes and foothills end and where the plains begin, we artificially delimit the area discussed in this chapter as the republics of Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia east of the Andes. The Chaco area of southeastern Bolivia extends into western Paraguay and into northwestern Argentina, and these are included as well. The Chaco languages are not covered by Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999). For these reasons, we include some material on all of the Chaco languages, even though they merit a more extensive separate treatment. Strictly speaking, this means that too many languages are included: languages of the Amazonian plains cannot properly be called Andean. On the other hand, it turns out that Quechua influence, one of the topics we will be concerned with in this chapter, extends far beyond the foothills. Another not altogether felicitous result of our delimitation is that the Colombian Amazonian plain, which forms a natural continuation of that of Ecuador and Peru, is not discussed here (it was dealt with in chapter 2). A. C. Taylor (1999: 198–9) describes some of the relations that existed between monta˜na and sierra cultures. Most of these were broken as a result of the colonisation process, and highland and lowland groups grew apart. In pre-Columbian times, Cochabamba (in what is now Bolivia) and Hu´anuco (in what is now Peru) served as trading centres for lowland groups. In northern Bolivia the Callahuaya chiefdoms acted as intermediaries between Quechua and Aymara cazicazgos and lowland Mojo, Tacana, and lesser Arawak groups. In Peru, the Campa of the established links with interfluvial Panoans and with the Piro on the Urubamba. The Incas had an open frontier,

L

I

Z

A

R .

COCAMA R

TOTO n o

z

HUI MUINANE a m B

A

TICUNA

A . OCAINA

BORA R

o YAGU

y a

MAYO m

OREJÓN u TOTO t

MURUI u OMAGUA(†) HUI

P

RESÍGARO

MAYORUNA A U

H Iquitos C

E AMEO(†)

A U Y

COLOMBIA Y Q . O CAPANAHUA SENSI(†) R C li E aya S Uc

COCAMA ANDOA(†)

CAHUARANO URARINA A N A . TEKIRAKA(†) Y CHAMICURO SHIPIBO

IO O R QUECHUA IQUITO PIRO ARABELA

S C o .

p R

a PÁNOBO(†)

E a g a l l a u S H N HUAO USHIRO eru

MAYNA(†)

TA JEBERO

QUECHUA Moyobamba

TETETÉ (†) MUNICHE

SIONA ZÁPARO

CANDOSHI CHAYAHUITA

QUECHUA R Chachapoyas QUECHUA A HIBITO(†)

U CHOLÓN(†)

COFÁN H A

HUAMBISA

C N

U

A R R. A R PERU

U n

A G ó

A

U añ

H r S a M

LAACHI QUECHUA Quito

PA Cajamarca ′

TSAFIKI Cuenca ECUADOR CHA Piura Guayaquil Map 7 Eastern lowland languages: Ecuador and northern P 4 Languages of the eastern slopes 413

H u SHIPIBO BRAZIL a M ll Pucallpa ISCONAHUA a a r g a a U ó R c a n . O y R HIB a . S l ASHÁNINCA A i C R . Q U CULINA E C MARINAHUA H ′ SHARANAHUA U YANESHA CASHINAHUA A Perené R. ASHÁNINCA YAMINAHUA IÑAPARI N O M PERU A AMAHUACA T CAMPA PIRO NAHUA S Puerto IG CAQUINTE U KUGAPACORI Lima E Maldonado N MACHIGUENGA G U MASHCO- A r ESE'EJJA u PIRO b PIRO a A m HARAKMBUT Ayacucho p ba A u R ri . ma Cuzco c R

. I V Q UECHUA

I

Lake L Titicaca A R O A M Y A B

CHILE

Map 8 Eastern lowland languages: southern Peru

stimulating links of dependency of local chieftains with Cuzco, but leaving local links intact. As a result of the colonisation process, all these links were weakened considerably or disappeared altogether. The population of the lowlands is sparse, and far from homogeneous sociologically. Taylor (1999: 194–5) divides the current population into racionales (‘rational people’, mestizos or highland Indians who have abandoned their original ethnic identity), nativos ‘natives’ or mansos ‘tame people’ (Amerindian groups living in accessible settlements but maintaining their ethnic identity), and aucas ‘wild, inimical people’ (groups who maintain a distance from the world). 414 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

BRAZIL PACAGUARA

R. e D G e d u dr ESE'EJJA a a po M ré R ARAONA . . R CHÁCOBO i MORÉ n ITONAMA e CAVINEÑA TOROMONA B U CAYUVAVA JORÁ P A U R TACANA REYESANO S CANICHANA E P R MOVIMA Trinidad a N E BAURE n A ag M SIRIONÓ CHIMANE u a S á P m a LECO n R MOSETÉN o ré M . MOJO i R. g u e GUARAYO l R . Lake La Paz Titicaca BOLIVIA YURACARÉ Cochabamba YUQUI

Santa Cruz CHIQUITANO

Sucre AYOREO

C CHANÉ

CHIRIGUANO

H MATACO TAPIETÉ PARAGUAY

I

L E ARGENTINA

Map 9 Eastern lowland languages: Bolivia MBYÁ

MBYÁ CHIRIPÁ

CHÉ

Í A

N

˜ A

AI-TAVYTERÃ R

P A BRAZIL U

. G guay R Para MAKÁ .

R

GUANÁ á

n

ra TOBA

EMOK a

P Asunción

LENGUA TOBA TOBA-

MASCOY ANGAITÉ . SANAPANÁ MAKÁ R

ARAGUAY o

CHAMACOCO y Í

a V

P O C

om O c M OREO l i VILELA P Á Resistencia AY G A L I CHULUPÍ- P

ASHLUSHLAY . R jo CHOROTE e m r e

B O

APIETÉ C

T

A

O T O

C A N

A A

U T

CHULUPÍ M

G A

I

O R M

I

H

C

CHOROTE N

A

U

G

I

R

I

Orán H C Salta ARGENTINA

BOLIVIA

E

L

I

H C Map 10 Eastern lowland languages: the Chaco area 416 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

B. Grimes (1996) lists 111 documented languages for the area (excluding for the mo- ment lowland varieties of Quechua, sign languages, Low German and Amazon Spanish). Twenty-one languages were claimed to be extinct in 1992, some more may have disap- peared as we write this, and more yet when this book comes out in print. The number of languages listed is somewhat arbitrary in that it is difficult to say where two varieties should be counted as dialects, and where as separate languages. The Ethnologue uses both criteria of linguistic distinctiveness and of ethnic self-identification. We see no reason not to follow these criteria, although in details we will diverge from the list of languages given there. In any case, it is clear we are dealing with large numbers of languages. ‘No other area of South America has greater linguistic diversity’, Steward (1948: 507) writes. There are a few larger language families represented in the area under consideration, a number of language families with few identified members and numerous language isolates. We will begin by presenting the major language families that are represented in the area, and then turn to the numerous language isolates or languages which so far have not been definitively classified. We have chosen four languages for a more detailed sketch: the Jivaroan language Shuar from the Ecuadorian–Peruvian border area, the almost extinct isolate Chol´on from the Andean foothills in northern Peru, Arawakan Yanesha (Amuesha) further to the south, and the Bolivian language isolate Chiquitano. For all languages sufficient information is available to gain some idea of the language, but no recent and easily accessible detailed description in English. It is difficult to convey to the reader the feeling of devastation and loss one has when reading about the cultures and languages of the eastern slopes and the Amazon. Although a sizeable portion of the original ethnic groups is still in existence, in some form or another, their way of life has changed enormously. Since the armies of Inca Tupac Yupanqui (1473–92) tried to conquer Madre de Dios and more northern lowland regions, the vast but ecologically delicate Amazon basin has been under constant siege from the highlands, with greater and greater success. From the 1540s onwards Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans founded missions, and tried to ‘reduce’ the Indians, nomadic or dispersed, into ordered settlements on the European model. In the reducciones, ‘reductions’, as the Spanish friars called the settlements, different Indian nations were mixed; sometimes new groups emerged. The greater concentration lead to greater ease of ‘benign’ exploitation by the missionaries, but also to greater vulnerabil- ity to epidemics; successive waves of smallpox for example in 1660, 1669, 1756 and 1762 decimated many groups (Phelan 1967: 47). In 1768 only 500 Chamicuro survived a smallpox epidemic on the (Chirif and Mora 1977); another group that suffered greatly from the epidemics are the Z´aparo. A. C. Taylor (1999: 240) claims that ‘the Indian societies of the central selva and further south were in fact infinitely better able to resist the colonist missionary onslaught than those in the reducciones,evento 4 Languages of the eastern slopes 417 the point of being able, between 1742 and 1770, to clear the region of all non-natives’. The Franciscans in that area in the early stages weakened indigenous societies less than the Jesuits, because they tended to keep the groups contacted much more isolated than the Jesuits. Some groups were also subject to raids by other Indians. In the eighteenth century the Arawakan Piro sold Machiguenga (also Arawakan) women and children on the market in the Spanish hacienda Santa Rosa in Rosalino. The Piro and the Shipibo–Conibo (Pano) enslaved many Amahuaca as well. Other Indian nations suffered from the colonial wars between the Portuguese and the Spanish. The Omagua, who fell victim to Portuguese slave-raiders, went from 15,000 to 7,000 in the forty years after 1641 (Chirif and Mora 1977). Later strife between the Peruvian and Colombian armies affected the Huitoto Murui. All these earlier assaults on their physical and cultural integrity pale, however, when compared to the effects of the rubber boom in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Fawcett 1953; Taussig 1987). Rubber traders and companies enslaved many Indians, and resettled entire groups. The number of deaths is staggering. The Huitoto Murui went from 50,000 to 7,000 in the first decade of this century, the Bora from 15,000 in 1915 (Whiffen 1915) to 427 in 1940, and of the thousands of Omagua only 120–50 were left in 1925. Other groups gravely affected by the rubber boom are the Andoque, the Capanahua, the Amarakaeri and the Eseejja. After 1850 the Peruvian Corporation enslaved many Campa and Yanesha (Amuesha) on the rivers Ene and Peren´e. Many Chamicuro were dislocated, transported to the Yavar´ı and Napo rivers and to Brazil. Since this period groups have managed for a considerable period at best to remain stable or increase slightly in number. In the modern era, Andean governments have often thought that the ‘empty’ spaces in the lowlands would be able to absorb the overflow from the highlands, and promoted resettlement and ‘colonisation’ in the traditional Indian ter- ritories. Mineral, logging and cattle-breeding companies have gained large concessions and employ the local Indians in highly unfavourable conditions. Adventurous highland settlers have profited from the isolation of many regions to establish themselves as patr´on and recreate conditions of virtual slavery through artificial indebtedness, forced barter and plain violence. There are many cases documented where the Indians, part of a hunt- ing/extraction economy, depend on the outsiders and are for example forced to supply afixed number of skins. It is reported that the Amarakaeri work for outsiders looking for gold (Gray 1986). For the dependency of the Yagua on tourism and other external forces see Chaumeil (1984). In some areas these conditions have long persisted, for instance, in the area of Atalaya. Now tribal groups have gained some rights to their territories there (Garc´ıa, Hvalkof and Gray 1998). It is one of the great challenges of our era to create the conditions under which cultural pluralism can thrive, when no physical means of refuge is left. 418 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

A. C. Taylor (1999: 204–5) argues that the locations of individual groups have not changed a great deal, but other changes are massive. In the sixteenth century the Amerindian societies were much more diversified sociologically than they are now. There were a number of highly Incanised tribes, such as the upland Jivaroans (cf. section 3.9.1), but also J´ıvaro who lived in small bands in the jungle. There were groups like the Z´aparo and interfluvial Pano that lived in small units and had no complex social structure next to large riverside groups like the Conibo and Omagua. A general issue of considerable interest that needs careful study is the role of the respective sign languages in the Amazon basin. Nordenski¨old (1912: 315–21) reports for the Gran Chaco, the border area between Bolivia and Paraguay,that within the mestizo Spanish communities the deaf had a marginal position while in the Indian communities they were fully integrated. The reason is the very different status of the respective sign languages. The Tapiet´e, the example he uses, obligatorily express numbers and measures through signs, and in their narratives, sign accompanies the spoken word continuously. All members of the group can use sign with the deaf, and hearing Tapiet´e will often use among themselves, for example when they want to communicate silently across a distance. Not all travellers, collectors and researchers were as careful and unbiased as Nordenski¨old, who provides five pages of description of the Tapiet´e signs, but reports of gestural communication abound. The reason we cannot deal with this issue any further is lack of systematic study.

4.1 The Pano–Tacanan languages The Pano–Tacanan language family is mostly spoken in the Peruvian lowlands, and to a lesser extent in contiguous areas of Brazil and Bolivia. In Bolivia, Panoan languages include Ch´acobo, Pacaguara and Yaminahua;and Tacanan languages: Araona, Cavine˜na, Eseejja or Huarayo, Reyesano (a language virtually extinct), Tacana and Toromona. The Tacanan branch is represented in Peru by Eseejja or Huarayo speakers on either side of the Bolivian border. The Panoan branch is spread out throughout the eastern Peruvian lowlands and, in particular, near the Ucayali river basin, with extensions along the Brazilian border both in the northern department of Loreto and the southern departments of Ucayali and Madre de Dios. As d’Ans (1970) and Kensinger (1985) explain, there is no consensus as to which Panoan languages have to be distinguished. Shell and Wise (1971) observe that speakers of different Panoan languages may partly understand each other but that Cashibo is not intelligible to speakers of other Panoan languages. Wise (1985) men- tions the following extant Panoan languages in Peru: Amahuaca, Capanahua, Cashibo– Cacataibo, Cashinahua, Cujare˜no, Isconahua, Mayoruna, Morunahua, Parquenahua or Nahua, Pisabo, Sharanahua, Shipibo–Conibo–Shetebo and Yaminahua.The Ethnologue adds Mayo, which is reported extinct by Wise (1985). Varese (1983) also mentions 4.1 The Pano-Tacanan languages 419

Marinahua and Mastanahua. Kensinger (1985) reports that they constitute a mixed group with the Sharanahua. Chirif and Mora (1977) mention a small group called Chandinahua. Amahuaca, Cashinahua, Mayoruna and Yaminahua are spoken in Brazil as well. Many Panoan groups were contacted in the eighteenth century. The Cashibo were first visited by missionaries in 1757. Around 1870 the Pachitea river Cashibo were subject to attacks by the Setebo and the Conibo (Chirif and Mora 1977). The Panoan languages are all closely related, and have been the subject of a number of comparative studies by d’Ans (1970), Kensinger (1985), Shell and Wise (1971) and Wise (1985). In Key (1968) and Girard (1971) the Tacanan languages are compared phonologically and cognate sets are given for this subfamily, some members of which appear to be rather closely related. These sources also present convincing phonological evidence for the link between the Tacanan and the Panoan branches. Girard (1971: 4, 145) stresses the puzzling fact that phonological changes in lexical roots have been limited within both the Panoan and Tacanan branches, but that morphological changes, partic- ularly in the ‘root extensions’, have been radical. This pattern points to an interesting early contact phase in these language groups. For many of the language groups in the monta˜na little is known about their history. Lathrap (1970) speculates that the split in the Panoan groups resulted from demographic pressures. While all Panoan groups presumably originate from the Cumancaya culture (around AD 1000), we now find the Shipibo–Conibo being settled along the Ucayali river basin, with an enriched culture (which also includes culture elements borrowed from the Tup´ıan Cocama). The Cashibo have been pushed into forest regions to the west and the Amahuaca, Remo and Mayoruna into areas to the east, and their present culture (as far as ceramics and other visual manifestations is concerned) is an impoverished version of that found a millennium ago. As far as information is available, the Panoan and Tacanan languages appear to be all SOV. From Loos’s (1969) grammatical analysis of Capanahua it becomes clear that it has postpositions and prenominal possessors. The position of the adjectives and other modifiers is less clear: both prenominal and postnominal adjectives are mentioned. There appears to be a validator or mood particle (glossed ‘affirmative’ here) in surface second position, which can be preceded by the subject, the object, an adverb or even the untensed verb.

(1) a. mani ta how-ti-ʔ-ki banana AF ripe-TF-PN-AF ‘The bananas are ripening.’ (Loos 1969: 91) b. mani ta ʔʔn his-i banana AF 1.SG see-PN ‘I see bananas.’ (Loos 1969: 91) 420 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

c. baʔkiˇstakoka ka-no-ˇs.iʔi-ki tomorrow AF uncle go-F.EU-IU-AF ‘Uncle will go tomorrow.’ (Loos 1969: 91) d. bana ta ʔʔn ha-ipi-ki plant AF 1.SG do-RE-AF ‘I planted.’ (Loos 1969: 91)

That the mood particle or validator occurs after the true first element of the clause becomes evident when an (emphatic) first- or second-person pronoun is placed in initial position. It is repeated in the clause, and thus it seems that the emphatic pronoun is left-dislocated:

(2) mia taʔ min ʔani-ki 2.SG.EM AF 2.SG big-AF ‘YOU are big.’ (Loos 1969: 92)

The relation between ta(ʔ) and the particle -ki,which also has affirmative value, needs further study. In the present tense -ki is obligatory with third-person subjects, but not with first- and second-person subjects. In other tenses -ki is found with all persons (Loos and Loos 1998: 34). A remarkable feature of Capanahua concerns recursive negation with ma of a deictic pronoun:

(3) ha: ‘he’ ha:-ma ‘not he’ ha:-ma-ma ‘not not he’ (= he indeed) ha:-ma-ma-ma ‘not not not he’ (= someone else) (Loos 1969:41)

There is a set of adverbial subordinating suffixes (attached to the clause-final verb), sensitive to the relation between the tenses of the adverbial clause and the main clause, to possible coreference of the subjects (switch-reference), and to possible transitivity of the matrix verb (Loos 1969: 67–77; Loos and Loos 1998: 660–3).1

(4) -kin simultaneous action (‘while’) same subject -ton simultaneous action (‘while’) subject of subordinate clause is object of main clause

1 The resemblance between some of the Capanahua suffixes and their counterparts in Chipaya is striking (cf. section 3.6): Cap. -kin / Ch. -kan ‘simultaneous; same subject’; Cap. -ton / Ch. -tan ‘simultaneous and previous, respectively; different subjects’; Cap. -non / Ch. -nan ‘subsequent and simultaneous, respectively; different subjects’. 4.1 The Pano-Tacanan languages 421

-ya simultaneous action (‘while’, ‘when’, ‘if’, ‘because’) different subjects -ʔaˇs. preceding action (‘after’, ‘when’, ‘if’, ‘because’) same subject matrix verb intransitive -ˇs.on preceding action (‘after’, ‘when’, ‘if’, ‘because’) same subject matrix verb transitive -noˇs.on subsequent action (‘in order to’) same subject -non subsequent action (‘so that’) different subjects

A curious fact concerning switch-reference in Capanahua is that the subject of the matrix verb in a switch-reference construction cannot be a full pronoun. The latter can only occur in the subordinate clause, as shown by the contrast in (5):

∗ (5) a. ka-ʔaˇs. ha: nokoti go-SS 3.SG arrive b. ha: ka-ʔaˇs. nokoti 3.SG go-SS arrive ‘Having gone he arrived.’ (Loos 1969: 88)

Often Capanahua utterances consist primarily of a verb with its suffixes. Verbs may be marked as transitive with the (often causative) suffixes -ha, -n and -tan, and there is a suffix -kʔt /-()ʔt that makes a verb medial or reflexive in nature (Loos 1969: 143–7). There is also an extensive set of tenses. According to Loos, both for the past and for the future, a four-way distinction is made:

(6) remote past x > 6 months 6 months > x > 1 month recent past 1 month > x > 1day 1day> x > present present x = present immediate future present < x < few hours near future x = tonight, tomorrow morning distant future tomorrow < x remote future x = some time in the future (Loos 1969: 28)

Valenzuela (2000a, b) has explored ergative splits in the Pano–Tacanan languages. Camp (1985) shows how noun/pronoun contrasts, and among the personal pronouns, person 422 4 Languages of the eastern slopes contrasts, determine ergative and absolutive case in Cavine˜na. When a third-person subject interacts with a first- or second-person object, as in the independent clause in (7), the third person is obligatorily ergative:

(7) ya-ce-ra hipe-etibe-ya-hu ta-ce-ra ya-ce isara-ca-kware 1-D-E approach-on.way.back-PN-DS 3-D-E 1-D(A) greet-arriving.object-RM ‘Asweapproached them, they greeted us.’ (Camp 1985: 44–5)

Similarly, when a second-person subject interacts with a first-person object, that second person is obligatorily ergative:

(8) riya-ke wekaka mi-ra e-kwana isara-nuka-wa this-which day 2.SG-E 1-PL(A) greet-again-RE ‘Today you spoke to us again.’ (Camp 1985: 45)

Guillaume (2000) is currently studying Cavine˜na from the perspective of spatial deixis.

4.2 The Arawakan languages The Arawakan language family, also referred to as Maipuran (David Payne 1991a), has a wide distribution in many areas of Central and South America. A. C. Taylor (1999: 205) observes that Arawakans lived in a fringe extending from the Pampas del Sacramento in the central Peruvian forest area to the Bolivian llanos. This fringe was broken by the Harakmbut and by Tacanan peoples. Taylor points at the variety in lifestyle among the Arawak, which included monta˜na people (e.g. the Amuesha or Yanesha), riverside dwellers (e.g. the Piro), atomised small groups, such as the Machiguenga, and well- organised chiefdoms, such as the Mojos. There was extensive trading between different groups. Taylor also includes the Panatagua, an extinct group of central Peruvian monta˜na dwellers among the Arawakans. However, the linguistic affiliation of the Panatagua has never been established with certainty. The Arawak family is represented in Bolivia by the Mojo language, which is split into two subgroups identified by their ancient mission names, Ignaciano and Trinitario (Olza Zubiri et al. 2002). A second Arawakan language is Baure. David Payne (1991b) has shown that Apolista or Lapachu, a nearly extinct language which has been reported by Monta˜no Arag´on (1987–9) as still spoken, should also be classified as Arawakan. The Chan´e, another Arawakan group, subjugated to the Tupi–Guaran´ı Chiriguano of the Argentinian–Bolivian border area, preserved its language until the twentieth century. Some smaller Arawakan groups (Paunaca, etc.) were incorporated by the Chiquitano. Very close to the Andes in Peru we find Campa, Machiguenga and Yanesha. The Yanesha have a history of frequent contacts with members of other groups; they live 4.2 The Arawakan languages 423

Table 4.1 The relationship between the Arawakan languages of the pre-Andean area (based on Payne 1991a, b)

Northern Apolista Apolista Baniva–Yavitero Baniva del Guain´ıa, Yavitero Caribbean Guajiro, Paraujano North Amazon Achagua, Cabiyar´ı, Curripaco, Maipure, Piapoco, Res´ıgaro, Tariana, Yucuna Western Amuesha Amuesha Chamicuro Chamicuro Central Parecis-Saraveca Saraveca Southern Bolivia-Paran´a Baure, Guan´a (Chan´e), Mojo (Ignaciano, Trinitario) Campa Ash´eninca, Machiguenga Piro–Apurin˜a Piro, I˜napari near the Cerro de la Sal, a site of traditional pilgrimages and trade. From 1635 onward they were in contact with the Franciscans, and in 1742 there was the rebellion of Juan Santos Atahuallpa, which led to the chasing away of the missions (Varese 1968). In 1881 the Franciscans returned. Taylor (1999: 241) argues that the Campa and Yanesha were less dependent on the highlands for metal tools because they had their own forges. Campa is subdivided into several subgroups, the largest being called Ash´aninca and Ash´eninca. Chirif and Mora (1977) mention a small group split off from the Machiguenga called Kugapakori or Pucapacuri. A fourth Arawakan language in the southeastern low- land is Piro, described by Matteson (1965). Campa and Piro are spoken in Brazil as well. The remaining Arawakan languages in eastern Peru are I˜napari (in Madre de Dios), Chamicuro and Res´ıgaro (both in Loreto). The latter two have also undergone profound phonological change. Speakers of Res´ıgaro live near the Bora and Huitoto along the Colombian border. There are no Arawakan languages spoken in Ecuador. The Arawakan language family is one of the best-studied families in the area. Partly based on earlier work of Wise and other scholars, David Payne (1991a) has managed to reconstruct a large number of features of this language family, and put its internal classification on a sounder footing. For the area under consideration the relationship between the different Arawakan languages is as in table 4.1. This is a fairly conservative grouping. It may be that southern and western Arawakan are closer than is apparent from this classification. David Payne speculates that Proto-Arawakan was highly agglutinative, with a set of person prefixes (both on nouns and verbs) and a third-person-singular gender distinction. There are also noun class suffixes, and a number of valency-changing verbal elements are suffixal. Wewill not enter into a detailed discussion here of the typological characteristics of the Arawakan languages, referring the reader to David Payne (1991a) and the work cited there, and for syntactic properties to Derbyshire (1986) and Wise (1986). Wise 424 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Table 4.2 Yanesha (Amuesha) phoneme inventory (based on Fast 1953 and Duff-Tripp 1998)∗

Labial Palatal labial Dental Palatal Retroflex Velar Palatal velar

Voiceless stops p py tty kky Voiced stops b by Affricates ccˇ ˇ c. Voiceless fricatives ssx ˇ Voiced fricativesz ˇ. γ Nasals m my nny Lateral ly Vibrant r Glides w y

Front Central Back

Mid e (ə)o Low a

∗ Yanesha vowels can be plain, long (a:, e:, o:), aspirated (ah, eh, oh), or glottalised (aʔ, eʔ, oʔ). stresses the highly verb-centred character of the Arawakan clause, and surmises that the original word order of the family was SOV, while now various orders are found, including for the area under study SOV, VSO and OVS. However, the special status of Yanesha, also called Amuesha (Wise 1976), as a lan- guage strongly influenced by Quechua, warrants a more detailed presentation. This case shows how far-reaching Quechua influence has been on some neighbouring monta˜na languages. Not only has Yanesha adopted a great many Quechua loans, including some core vocabulary, and the numerals from ‘six’ to ‘nine’, but it has also developed, for all practical purposes, a three-vowel system like Quechua instead of the four-vowel system of related Arawak varieties such as Campa. Furthermore, it has adopted a retroflex palatal affricate c.ˇ, according to Wise, from central Peruvian Quechua varieties such as Jun´ın, Pasco or Hu´anuco. Finally, it does not allow the vowel sequences common in related Arawak varieties but impossible in Quechua. The phonological changes in Yanesha had made it difficult for earlier researchers to classify the language as Arawak (Wise 1976).

4.2.1 Yanesha phonology The consonant inventory of Yanesha is given in table 4.2. It is based on Duff-Tripp (1998), which builds on Fast (1953) and Duff (1957). These two sources present a three- vowel system for the language, which is expanded to four vowels in Duff-Tripp (1998). The Yanesha texts available indicate that the overwhelming majority of words involve 4.2 The Arawakan languages 425 the three vowels a, e, o. These vowels occur in different phonation types: they can be plain, long, aspirated, or glottalised.2 A central feature of the consonant inventory is the systematic opposition of palatal and non-palatal stops. Aword series as in (9) illustrates vowel length and glottalisation, as well as the opposition between palatal, alveolar and retroflex affricates: (9) copˇ ‘it grows’ cˇ.o:p ‘corn’ tyo:p ‘an insect’ coʔ ‘fire’ tyoʔ ‘grandfather’ (Fast 1953: 192)

4.2.2 The principal grammatical features of Yanesha

Nominal elements There is no grammaticalised gender in Yanesha,but a number of kinship terms are indeed differentiated for natural gender. Words for brother and sister and son and daughter are also differentiated for the gender of Ego (po- ∼ pwe- is a possessive prefix; the variation is dialectal; some nouns take paʔ- or poʔ- instead; cf. Duff-Tripp 1997: 144): (10) a. paʔ-moʔnaˇseny ‘his brother’ ʔ p-o cˇ. ‘his sister’ poʔ-se ‘her brother’ ʔ ʔ pa -mo neˇz. ‘her sister’ b. po-ˇcemer, pwe-ˇcemer ‘his son, daughter’ po-ˇcoyor, pwe-ˇcoyor ‘her son, daughter’ poʔ-seny ‘his daughter’, ‘his/her niece (by sibling of same sex)’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 25, 31, 33) There are compounds with the nucleus at the end:

(11) a. sonˇ yker-(e)po worm-time ‘season of the worms’ b. aˇsoʔs-esmeˇ ʔly armadillo-tail ‘armadillo tail’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 25)

2 Vowel length and aspiration are not systematically indicated in Duff-Tripp (1997, 1998). 426 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Some compounds have a non-nominal initial element:

ʔ (12) a. ataˇz.-po big-house ‘big house’ w b. anoˇz.-p ec sit-place ‘a place to sit’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 38)

Personal reference Prefixal person marking in Yanesha can refer to possessors, objects, and subjects. The paradigm is as in (13) (Duff-Tripp 1997: 29):

(13) ne- 1.SG ye- 1.PL pe- 2.SG se- 2.PL po/pwe- 3.SG po-/pwe- .. -et 3.PL Notice that this system has been considerably simplified when compared to the Proto-Arawakan system reconstructed by David Payne:

(14) ∗nu- 1.SG ∗wa- 1.PL ∗p- 2.SG ∗hi- 2.PL ∗l- 3.SG.MS ∗na- 3.PL ∗thu- 3.SG.FE (David Payne 1991a: 376)

When the prefix is a possessor, there may be suffixal person marking on the enclitic element ‘to be’.

(15) no-pakly-oʔ-ce:n-en 1P.SG-house-L-be-1S.SG ‘I am/was in my house.’ (Wise 1986: 571)

The paradigm for this suffixal marking is as follows:

(16) -Vn 1.SG -Vy 1.PL -Vpy/-Vp 2.SG -Vs 2.PL ∅ 3.SG -et 3.PL (Duff-Tripp 1997: 41)

The nature of the vowel in these suffixes is determined by phonological characteristics of the base word. Notice the close link between these suffixes and the prefix paradigm in (13). When the possessor is not the original possessor of a noun, double prefixal marking can occur: 4.2 The Arawakan languages 427

(17) no-paʔ-smeʔly-o:r 1P.SG-3P.SG-tail-RL ‘my tail (which I have obtained from some animal)’ (Wise 1986: 575)

With respect to possession, four classes of nouns must be distinguished (Duff-Tripp 1997: 30–5):

(18) a. possessive marking obligatory (basic kinship terms such as ‘sister’ and ‘daughter’ and elements that always form part of a whole): pwe-setmaʔty 3P.SG-horizontal.beam ‘the horizontal beam of a house’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 31)

b. possessive marker normally present (body parts, kinship terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, abstract nouns, normally possessed elements). These elements carry the privative marker -c/-Vc when the possessor is not specified: p-ony ony-ec 3P.SG-head head-PI ‘her/his head’ ‘head’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 31) poʔ-nyony nyony-ec 3P.SG-word word-PI ‘her/his word’ ‘word’ (Duff-Tripp 1998: 603)

c. possessive marker optional (many objects, animals, kinship terms such as ‘mother’ and ‘father’): p-oˇck-ar oˇcek 3P.SG-dog-RL dog ‘her/his dog’ ‘dog’ (Duff-Tripp 1998: 254)

d. possessive marker impossible (a small class including ceˇˇ saʔ ‘child’ and wokˇcaneˇsaʔ ‘orphan’)

This classification of four classes of nouns intersects with one concerning the form of the possessive marking. Most inanimate objects, all body parts and some of the kinship terms for children and siblings just receive a possessive prefix. However, an- imate beings, most kinship terms, words for food and some nominalisations receive the possessive prefix as well as a suffix -Vr, illustrated with p-oˇck-ar ‘her/his dog’ in (18c). With verbs, the person prefix normally marks the subject (cf. the examples below). In certain circumstances, e.g. in relative clauses in which the subject is unspecified, the 428 4 Languages of the eastern slopes prefixal person marking can refer to the object:

(19) nyenyty ye-co:y-oʔt-amp-e:n-eʔ which 1O.PL-light-EU-DA-PR-UN ‘which lights us (the sun)’ (Wise 1986: 571)

Marking of grammatical relations and adpositions Objects and subjects are not marked overtly, but there is a generalised relational (locative, genitive, instrumental) case marked -o,which can be further specified by an additional suffix or suffix combination:

(20) nonyty-o locative ‘in/to the canoe’ nonyty-o-ty ablative ‘from the canoe’ nonyty-o-ty-eny ‘from the canoe onward’ nonyty-o-ty-eyeʔ ‘a bit beyond the canoe’ nonyty-o-nety allative ‘towards the canoe’ nonyty-o-wa delimitative ‘until the canoe’ nonyty-o-ʔmar approximate location ‘near the canoe’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 35–6)

There is no set of postpositions, with the exception of a marker -Vkop for benefactive and purpose:

y y (21) ceˇˇ sa-neˇsa-t ol -eˇc.n-okop child-group-DI-various-B ‘for all various classes of small children’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 48)

Many spatial distinctions are marked with (possibly internally complex) adverbs, such as:

y (22) al ‘there’ aˇz. ‘here’ ʔ y a yo ‘there (distant)’ t -aˇz.-o ‘there (not so distant)’ yom-taʔn ‘on the other side’ anyemy-taʔn ‘on this side’ aly-apyar ‘far’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 126)

Verbs An example of a highly complex verb in Yanesha is given in (23):

y ʔ y (23) ∅-omaˇz.-am -e t-amp -es-y-e:s-n-e:n-a 3S-go.downriver-DB-EU-DA-EU-PL-EU-late-PR-RF ‘They are going downriver by canoe in the late afternoon stopping often along the way.’ (Wise 1986: 582) 4.2 The Arawakan languages 429

Striking is the frequent occurrence of euphonic markers, which also appear to have a grammatical function. Note also the use of a tense marker indicating ‘late afternoon’; it contrasts with a marker indicating ‘early morning’. The element -ampy-, glossed ‘dative’ by Wise, deserves special mention. It can add a slot for an affected oblique object to an intransitive: (24) a. ne-maht-a 1S.SG-run-RF ‘I run.’ (Wise 1986: 592) b. ne-maht-ampy-s-apy-a 1S.SG-run-DA-EU-2O.SG-RF ‘I run away from you.’ (Wise 1986: 592) Sometimes this function of -ampy- leads to a passive-like structure, as in (25b): (25) a. ∅-waht-a 3S-rain-RF ‘It rained.’ (Wise 1986: 593) b. no-waht-ampy-s-a 1S.SG-rain-DA-EU-RF ‘I was caught in the rain.’ (Wise 1986: 593) The rich suffixal verbal morphology expresses a wide range of concepts. One example is subjunctive mood:

(26) pe-ˇso:r-aʔn-mw-e:paʔ 2S.SG-fall-AB-CM-SJ ‘Be careful lest you fall.’ (Wise 1986: 602)

Another one involves reciprocal marking:

(27) ∅-y-aʔn-aʔt-ann-aʔt-a 3S-cry-RR-EU-RC-EU-RF ‘They cry for one another.’ (Wise 1986: 579)

Word order Basic word order in main clauses is VSO:

ʔ ʔ 3 (28) o ka zˇ.-at-eˇz.-ey aˇc.kaˇs y-aˇc-or already eat-CA-RP-1S.PL dwarfs 1P.PL-mother-RL ‘The dwarfs have already fed our mother.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 177)

3 Possibly a borrowing from neighbouring Quechua I dialects, where aˇc. kaˇs means ‘lamb’. 430 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

However, often a topic marked with -paʔ (either subject or object) occurs preverbally:

(29) paʔ-tak-paʔ awoʔ pampw-eny-et-aʔ paʔ-ˇcoy-o 3P-foot-TO HS bury-PR-3S.PL-AN 3P-field-L ‘One foot (of his) they buried in the field.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 179)

Auxiliary elements precede the verb, while oblique complements tend to follow it:

(30) aw-oʔ ∅-aw-an-mw-e:t ent-o AX-HS 3S-go-AB-CM-3S.PL.RF sky-L ‘Then they went up to the sky.’ (Wise 1986: 605)

Modifiers such as possessors precede the head noun:

(31) a:ˇcpw-eʔm-a:r mother 3P-baby-RL ‘mother’s baby’ (Wise 1986: 607)

4.2.3 Complex sentences in Yanesha Adverbial clauses generally precede the main clause and are marked with -paʔ:

ʔ ʔ ʔ ʔ ʔ (32) ama ye-ˇz.-en-a -pa o cˇ y-e pota t-a [cf. Quechua ama ‘don’t’] not 1S.PL-eat-PR-AN-TO F 1S.PL-wash.hands-RF ‘Before eating we wash our hands.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 191)

In relative clauses a relativiser nyenyty appears at the beginning of the clause, before the verb, and the clause is marked again with the topic marker -paʔ:

(33) any-nyapaʔ-tak, nyenyty ∅-pampw-en-et-aʔ paʔ-ˇcoy-o-paʔ,awoʔ anapy this-SQ 3P-foot, R 3S-bury-PR-3.PL-AN 3P-field-L-TO, HS 3S.answer.3O ‘The foot they buried in the field answered.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 206)

Notice that the clause follows the antecedent.

4.3 Tupi–Guaran´ı The very important Tupi–Guaran´ı language family is mostly spoken in the area south of the Amazon, in Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Peru. In Bolivia, it is represented by Chiriguano–Ava, Chiriguano–Tapyi or Izoce˜no, Guarayo, Jor´a, Pauserna–Guarasugw´e, Sirion´o and Yuqui. It also includes the Chan´e, a former Arawakan group which now speaks Chiriguano, and the Tapiet´e. The Tapiet´e are claimed by Nordenski¨old (1912: 310) to be originally a Mataco-related group. Some of the other Tupi–Guaran´ıgroups are small (the nomadic Sirion´o) or nearing extinction (the Jor´a and the Pauserna–Guarasugw´e). 4.3 Tupi–Guaran´ı 431

Table 4.3 The relationship among the pre-Andean members of the Tupi–Guaran´ı language family (based on Rodrigues 1984–5)

I Chiriguano–Ava (including Tapiet´e) Chiriguano–Tapyi or Izoce˜no Guaran´ı II Guarayo Pauserna–Guarasugw´e∗ Sirion´o, Jor´a Yuqui∗ III Cocama, Omagua

∗ Pauserna–Guarasugw´e and Yuqui are not classified in Rodrigues (1984–5).

The Chiriguano have always been a militarily powerful group; they invaded the Andean territories proper both during the Inca period and in colonial times. Tupi–Guaran´ı languages are found in Peru along the Amazon and Ucayali rivers. There are two languages, Cocama, including Cocamilla, and Omagua. A few speakers of Cocama can be found in Brazil as well. Early explorers of the Amazon such as Orellana marvelled at the riches of the Omagua city-like settlements along the rivers. Cocama is giving way to Spanish at the present moment, and the people are now often acculturated and live dispersed. The Cocama were first contacted in 1559, and the Cocamilla much later, in 1651. In 1666 the two groups rebelled together against the Spaniards (Chirif and Mora 1977). The relationship among the Bolivian and Peruvian members of this extensive lan- guage family (found also in Brazil and Paraguay) has been the subject of some disagree- ment, due to different classificatory techniques. Firestone (1965) has applied lexico- statistic techniques, and Lemle (1971) has traced some phonological innovations, while Rodrigues (1984/5) has combined several types of diagnostic criteria, and Dietrich (1990) has done a sophisticated analysis of the number of phonological and morpholog- ical features separating these languages. The groupings proposed by Dietrich (1990), as a consequence, not only reflect genetic relationships but also degree of innovation. Here we follow Jensen (1998), a comparative reconstruction of Tupi–Guaran´ı morphosyntax, in taking Rodrigues (1984–5) as our point of departure. The relevant branches of the Tupi–Guaran´ıfamily are given in table 4.3. While the family as a whole has preserved many of its original features relatively intact, a number of languages have undergone considerable changes. Sirion´o, Jor´a and, presumably, Yuqui have been much simplified, possibly because these languages are the 432 4 Languages of the eastern slopes result of the adoption of Tupi–Guaran´ıasasecond language by people who originally spoke something else (Rodrigues 1984–5: 43). The nature of these simplification pro- cesses remains to be studied, however. In any case, the present-day differences between Guarayo and the other members of its group are much larger than their joint classification would suggest (Dietrich 1990: 111). The case of Cocama also is of great interest from the perspective of language history and language contact. While phonologically and lexically it is undoubtedly a Tup´ıan language, closely related to Tupinamb´a from Brazil, structurally it is not (Rodrigues 1984–5: 43–4; Cabral 1995, 2000). It has different pronouns when spoken by the two genders, and in several cases the feminine form is of Tupi origin (bold here), while the masculine is not (the reverse never happens):4

(34) 1.SG FE = ece´ MS = ta 2.SG ene´ 3.SG FE = ay´ MS = uri´ 1.IN ´ıni 1.EX FE = p´enu MS = t´ana 2.PL epe´ (Cabral 1995: 132)

Rodrigues (personal communication) suggests that the language resulted from a fairly recent migration of a group speaking a Tupinamb´a-related language from the lower to the upper Amazon, perhaps in the immediate preconquest era, and its subsequent incorporation in a different language group.

4.4 The Jivaroan languages Jivaroan is represented by four languages: Aguaruna, , (or Achual) and J´ıvaro or Shuar. All four languages are closely related. Jivaroan speakers show a particularly strong ethnic consciousness. The Aguaruna territory in Peru is quite ex- tensive and covers parts of the departments of Loreto and Amazonas. The Huambisa are mainly in Loreto. The Shuar (also known as the J´ıvaro) occupy the eastern slopes of the Ecuadorian Andes, mainly in the province of Morona–Santiago, up to the very limits of the Andean ridge proper. The volcano is their sacred mountain. To the east of the Shuar live the Achuar (partly also in Loreto, Peru). Thus the southern part of the Ecuadorian oriente is dominated by a single family of closely related languages, Jivaroan. It may be that previously the Jivaroan area extended into the highlands of the Ecuadorian province of Loja. Like their Peruvian relatives the Aguaruna, the Ecuadorian Shuar are known for their high level of political organisation.

4 See, however, Schleicher (1998) for an explanation of the Cocama first person-singular prefix -ta within the context of Tupi–Guaran´ı historical development. 4.4 The Jivaroan languages 433

The Jivaroan groups have a long and complex history of interactions with the highland cultures. The Shuar are renowned for having raided Andean territories as late as the colonial period. They were first contacted by the Spanish early on, in 1534, and rebelled succesfully in 1599. In 1816 a new attempt was made to subdue them. The Aguaruna were attacked by the Incas upon several occasions, and after 1549 the Spaniards attempted to bring them together in reducciones.In1886 they rebelled against the Jesuits (Chirif and Mora 1977). The Huambisa have managed to stay further apart from the Spanish, due to their location further into the interior. As mentioned above, Shuar is one of the most important languages of the Ecuado- rian lowlands. Part of the Jivaroan language family, it is closely related to and mutually intelligible with Achuar and slightly more distantly related to and partly intelligible with Aguaruna and Huambisa. While the Shuar are very well known, under the name J´ıvaro, and have been the subject of extensive ethnographic studies, particularly by Karsten (1935) and Harner (1972), there is surprisingly little in terms of full linguistic descrip- tions. The sketch here takes the brief account presented by Karsten (1935) as its basis, and includes some of the data presented in Beuchat and Rivet (1909, 1910a), Alvarez ([c.1915] 1983), Flornoy (1938), Turner (1958), Pellizzaro (1969), Juank (1982), Rouby and Riedmayer (1983) and Gnerre (1986). It has not been possible to completely ho- mogenise the spelling from the different sources, since it is not always clear whether the differences arise from orthographic conventions, phonetic versus phonological spelling, or from regional or diachronic variation. Finally, there is the problem that in Macas a version of Shuar was in use by and with mestizo settlers (Gnerre 1986: 340), and it may be that Karsten’s account is influenced by this pidgin Shuar. Gnerre (1986: 309–11) draws attention to the wide variety of registers that were available in traditional Shuar, including ceremonial visiting dialogues, ceremonial war party dialogues and tra- ditional narrative styles. In the course of the twentieth century, these styles have largely disappeared; it would be interesting to study the features of recently developed styles, such as the Shuar used in radio transmissions.

4.4.1 Shuar phonology The major source on Shuar phonology is Turner (1958). He presents the phoneme in- ventory given in table 4.4. There is a nasal–oral contrast in the vowel system, but most of the consulted sources indicate nasality inconsistently or not at all. Sequences of same vowels occur, some of which may be due to the loss of an intervocalic consonant (e.g. in waakis ‘Gualaquiza’). Karsten (1935) sometimes indicates vowel length, where other sources have plain vowels. Most sources use the symbols e or i for the central vowel established by Turner (1958). There is also a vowel [e] which in most contexts is best analysed as underlyingly /a/. Thus we have: 434 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Table 4.4 Shuar phoneme inventory (based on Turner 1958)∗

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal

Stops p t k Affricates cc ˇ Fricatives ssh ˇ Nasals m n ŋ Vibrant r Glides w y

Front Central Back

High i u Mid Low a

∗ Vowel nasality and stress are contrastive. Karsten (1935) and Juank (1982) also distinguish vowel length.

(35) y˜aw˜a-i´ 5 > [y˜aw˜ey]´ dog-3P.SG ‘his dog’ (Turner 1958: 89)

In view of the uncertain interpretation of the vowels, we write nuclear vowels as they appear in each source. For consonants and non-nuclear vowels we use the phoneme inventory introduced by Turner, although we do write palatalisation if the original source has it. Most consonants have palatalised allophones after i. Stops and affricates are voiced (and sometimes deaffricated) after nasals (Turner 1958). There is a pervasive tendency towards penultimate stress on the radical, which does not shift, e.g.:

(36) wak´era-tinyu wish-IF ‘in order to wish’ (Karsten 1935: 544) Although Turner (1958) does not elaborate the point, there is some evidence that radical– final nasals in some cases correspond to underlying prenasalised stops ∗ŋk, ∗nt, ∗mp. These have been preserved as such in the more conservative Aguaruna.

(37) a. nuh´ın+ur [nuh´ıntur] egg-1P.SG ‘my egg’ (Turner 1958: 93)

5 Note the similarity with Tupi–Guaran´ı yaγ wa´ ‘dog’. Jivaroan has a number of words that appear to be borrowings from Tupi–Guaran´ı. 4.4 The Jivaroan languages 435

b. s´ˇıam+aˇs [ˇs´ıampaˇs] chick-DU ‘a chick perhaps’ (Turner 1958: 93)

Because of the unsolved status of the homorganic nasal-stop sequences in Shuar, the stop element will be written as in the original source. Avery frequent process in Shuar is metathesis:

(38) a. p´antam+nap´uhu-y [p´anman ap´uhuy] banana-AC place-3S ‘He is planting bananas.’ (Turner 1958: 93) b. u:nt [u:nt] ‘elder’ u:nt-ru-ˇsa [´u:ntruˇsa] ‘also my elder’ u:nt-ru [´u:ntur] ‘my elder’ (Juank 1982: 10)

Finally, we should mention the epenthesis of vowels to suffixed radicals:

(39) peŋker-a-yti6 good-EU-be.3S.SG ‘It is good.’ (Pellizzaro 1982: 9)

4.4.2 The principal grammatical features of Shuar In Shuar there are productive categories of nouns (including various classes of pronouns), verbs, adjectives and adverbs. A few verbs can be used as auxiliaries. Postpositions, deter- miners and conjunctions are enclitic elements. There is also a large group of ideophonic interjections.

Nominal elements Noun phrases tend not to be very complex in Shuar, and neither is there a very complex nominal morphology. Bare nouns can have both indefinite and definite reference, but nouns can be made specific in three ways: with the enclitic particle -ka, with the preceding third-person pronoun ni, and with a following demonstrative nu:

(40) su´ˇ a:ra-ka ‘the Shuar’ ni p´aŋgi ‘the big serpent (anaconda)’ unta´ nu ‘the chief’, ‘the old one’ (Karsten 1935: 544–5)

The particle -ka may also be added to pronouns and some adverbs. There is no grammaticalised gender or number marking. Diminutives are commonly formed with the particle -ˇci, and in poetic usage sometimes with -ta:

6 Pronunciation suggested in Rouby and Riedmayer (1983): [pwe´ŋgar´eyti]. 436 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

(41) a. uˇ´ci-ta son-DI ‘my little son’ (Karsten 1935: 546) b. nuku-ˇ ´ ci mother-DI ‘my little mother’ (Karsten 1935: 546)

Other nominal enclitics are -ki ‘alone’ (-k according to Turner 1958) and -ˇsa ‘also’:7 (42) a. w´ı-ki 1.SG-DL ‘I alone’ (Karsten 1935: 559) b. n´uwa-ˇsa woman-AD ‘the woman also’ (Pellizzaro 1969: 13) Beuchat and Rivet (1909: 814–15) mention the existence of compounds; note that (43a) appears to be right-headed, and (43b) left-headed. (Beuchat and Rivet’s examples are given in the original spelling.)

w (43) a. x.apa-yag a deer-dog ‘leopard’ (Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 814) b. akap-nawe stomach-foot ‘foot sole’ (Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 815) They also mention cases of reduplication:

(44) tagwa tagwa ‘hat’ [cf. tagwasa ‘feather crown’] kaˇsi kaˇsi ‘day after tomorrow’ [kaˇsi ‘tomorrow’] (Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 815)

Personal reference Shuar distinguishes three persons and the opposition singular/plural is sometimes marked as well. The personal pronouns are:

(45) 1.SG wi 1.PL i: 2.SG am(u)e´ 2.PL atum´ı 3.SG ni, au´ 3.PL ni, au´ (Juank 1982: 3)

7 Compare the Aymara suffixes -ki and -sa,which have the same meaning. 4.4 The Jivaroan languages 437

The status of the third-person pronominal form au´ is unclear. (Sometimes it seems that in the plural au´ is preferred over ni;inother cases, au´ seems to refer to elements new in the discourse, and ni to elements already referred to before.) The labial in au´ may be the source for the labial in the third-person-singular verbal agreement marker below. There is a corresponding set of verbal agreement markers:

(46) 1S.SG -ha(y) 1S.PL -hi 2S.SG -me 2S.PL -rme 3S.SG -wa(y) 3S.PL -ynya-wa(y) (Juank 1982: 7)

The short forms without -y are found before the interrogative marker -k. There is an opposition between the deictic pronouns hu ‘this’ and nu ‘that’, which might be related to the difference between -ha(y) ‘first-person singular’ and ni ‘she, he’. Inflected verbs need not have an overt subject:

(47) winya-me-k´ come-2S.SG-IR ‘Are you coming?’ (Juank 1982: 3)

Notice that in wh-questions, an even shorter form of the verbal agreement marker ap- pears. Consider the following contrast:

(48) ityurak´ a-yn ´ yah´u-nika-yn ´ ya-way how be-3S.PL this-like be-3.PL-3S ‘How are they?’ ‘They are like this.’ (Juank 1982: 16)

This alternation may result from a contrast between declarative and non-declarative verb forms, as in the Barbacoan languages. Nouns can appear uninflected for person (there are numerous examples of uninflected possessed nouns in the sources), but there is also a set of person markers:

(49) 1P.SG -r(u) 1P.PL -ri 2P.SG -ram 2P.PL -ri 3P.SG -ri 3P.PL -ri (Juank 1982: 3, 5)

With nouns, however, a pronominal possessor generally must be overt:

(50) atum´ın´a:-r´ı you.PL name-P ‘your (plur.) name’ (Juank 1982: 5) 438 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

The agreement markers in Shuar are not pronominal in being able to occur by them- selves, even if there may be a correspondence of -w (wi / -ru)inthe first person and of -am (am(u)e / -ram)inthe second person singular. The exception are kinship terms, which may appear without the possessor pronoun:

(51) nukuˇ ´ ci-ru-ka cap´ıkiuya-yi ´ grandmother-1P.SG-DF Tsapiki be.RM-3S ‘My grandmother was Tsapiki.’ (Juank 1982: 9)

Kinship terms optionally and body part terms obligatorily have another person marker in the second (-em/-im) and third person (-e/-i):

(52) a. ame nuw´a-ram / ame n´uw-em ‘your wife’ b. ni nuwa-r´ı / ni nuw-´e ‘his wife’ c. ame nihy a´˜-im ‘your forehead’ d. ni nihy a-i´˜ ‘her/his forehead’ (Juank 1982: 36)

In copular constructions, the copula inflected for person appears as an enclitic on the predicate:

(53) p´eŋker-´a-yt-hay good-EU-be-1S.SG ‘I am good.’ (Juank 1982: 13)

Marking of grammatical relations and adpositions Subjects are not overtly marked, and (direct or indirect) object and possessor NPs may remain unmarked as well (see also the section on word order below). Beuchat and Rivet mention an object marker -n, -na,or-m for Gualaquiza Shuar, as in:

(54) yusa santo naha-ri-n andaram tax.-aip God holy name-3P.SG-AC in.vain say-2S.NE.IM ‘Don’t say God’s holy name in vain.’ (Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 817)

According to Pellizzaro (1969: 15), and at variance with example (54), the object marker -n is only used when the subject of the sentence is first person singular or third person. It is found as -an/-en after consonants, and as -in after a second-person possessive ending in -m. The ending -na is found as an alternative for -n,inwhich case the preceding vowel is suppressed (e.g. n´uwa-r´u-n ∼ nuw´a-r-na ‘to my wife’). The suffix is also present in the related language Aguaruna (Corbera Mori 2000). 4.4 The Jivaroan languages 439

(55) tar´aˇc-rum-in naw´ant-an sus´a-hay cloth-2P-AC girl-AC give-1S.SG ‘I gave your cloth (tarachi)tothe girl.’ (Pellizzaro 1969: 15)

There are special strong possessive forms for the pronouns:

(56) wi-nya ‘my, mine’ i:-nyu ‘ours’ ami-nyu ‘your, yours’ atum(i)-nya ‘yours’ ni:-nyu, au-nu ‘his, her(s), their(s)’ (Pellizzaro 1969: 16)

The element -na/-nu, discernable in the possessive form of the pronouns, is also found with other nouns, where it indicates attribution or destination. Pellizzaro (1969: 16) indicates that -na is used after consonants and after monosyllabic stems (which apparently may not contain a long vowel or a diphthong), whereas -nu is used elsewhere.

(57) a. hu m´aˇcitu:nt-na-yti ´ this machete chief-G-be.3S.SG ‘This machete belongs to the chief.’ b. hu m´aˇcit suŋka-nu-yti this machete Sunka-G-be.3S.SG ‘This machete belongs to Sunka.’ (Juank 1982: 36)

Location and time can be indicated by means of the suffixes -nam and -num. According to Pellizzaro (1969: 17, 21) and Juank (1982: 30), the phonological conditioning of these allomorphs is the reverse of that of attributive -na and -nu; -num is used af- ter consonants and -nam after vowels. Further allomorphs are -i (after the first-person possessive marker -ru), -in (after second-person possessive markers in -m), and -n (after the possessive marker -ri). Karsten (1935) mentions the forms -numa and -n´ama but without the alleged conditioning.

(58) a. he:a-numa house-L ‘in the house’ (Karsten 1935: 558) b. he:a-numa we´a-hey house-L go-1S.SG ‘I go to my house.’ (Karsten 1935: 559) c. he:a-numa winya-hey´ house-L come-1S.SG ‘I come from my house.’ (Karsten 1935: 559) 440 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Notice that -numa can mark both Source and Goal. With verbs of motion the postposition is often omitted. The suffix -nama(n) can also be translated as ‘(in exchange) for’ (Karsten 1935: 559). Direction (allative) is indicated by means of a suffix -(V)ni.Itisoften found after the locative ending -n(u)ma in a sequence -n(u)mani. After personal possessive endings this sequence is reduced to -i-ni (Pellizzaro 1969: 21, Juank 1982: 30).

(59) a. mur´a-ni w´ea-hay mountain-AL go-1S.SG ‘I am going towards the mountain.’ (Juank 1982: 28) b. nihy a´˜y-ru-´ı-ni forehead-1P.SG-L-AL ‘ahead of me’ (Juank 1982: 28)

Separation (ablative) is indicated by -y˜a ‘from’. Like -(V)ni,itcan occur after the locative marker (-num-y˜a, -nma-y˜a), and again the sequence is reduced to -i-y˜a after personal possessive endings. Notice the use of tu-y´am ‘from where’, rather than ∗tu-y˜´a, as well as the short form -m for the second-person subject marker in a wh-question, in (60a):

(60) a. tu-y´am winya-m´ where-AB come-2S.SG ‘Where do you come from?’ (Juank 1982: 6) b. T´ayˇs-nyum-y˜a winya-hay´ Taisha-L-AB come-1S.SG ‘I come from Taisha.’ (Juank 1982: 6)

Instrumental, comitative or manner are indicated by means of the ending -hay (Karsten 1935: 546; Juank 1982: 36):

(61) a. ap´aˇci-hey we´a-hey white.man-IS go-1S.SG ‘I go with the white man.’ (Karsten 1935: 546) b. naŋki-hey ma-ma lance-IS kill-PF ‘killed with a lance’ (Karsten 1935: 546) c. su´ˇ ar-ˇcam-hay Shuar-language-IS ‘in the Shuar language’ (Juank 1982: 36) 4.4 The Jivaroan languages 441

Verbs Verbs can be marked for a number of suffixes. There are a number of highly complex morphophonological adjustment rules and the sources only give sketchy information. Hence, the following account, needless to say, can only be preliminary. A first set of affixes is attached directly to the verbal root:

(62) -u ‘go to...’ -i ‘come to...’ -mtik(i) causative -n passive -nay reciprocal -ŋkya ‘almost’ -te inchoative (Juank 1982: 77)

Some examples include:

(63) a. nek´a-mtiki-a-ta-y know-CA-SA-HO-1S.PL ‘Let us make it known.’ (Juank 1982: 77) b. am´u-te-k-hay finish-IC-IT-1S.SG ‘I have started to finish.’ (Juank 1982: 77)

A second set of affixes marks completive or perfective aspect (there is a broad distinction in Shuar between perfective and imperfective verbs). The form of the aspectual marker gives additional information (Pellizzaro 1969: 26; Juank 1982: 54). See also the two preceding examples.

(64) -i- / -∅- imperfective -a- simple -k- iterative / intensive -r- with plural object -s- diminutive / affective -k(i)- neglected action

The imperfective is unmarked after stems ending in a single consonant, otherwise the ending is -i- (Pellizzaro 1969). External to aspect marking we find tense and mood markers, but they can be preceded by the negation marker -ˇca-. The tenses include (Juank 1982: 26, 33): 442 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

(65) -m(a) past at a definite point in time -mya past at an indefinite point in time -tta future

Examples are:

(66) um´a-r-ˇca-m-hay8 drink-3O.PL-NE-DF.PA-1S.SG ‘I didn’t drink (yesterday).’ (Juank 1982: 26) (67) tak´a-s-ˇca-tta-rme work-DI-NE-F-2S.PL ‘You (plur.) will not work.’ (Juank 1982: 33) External to tense markers we find verbal agreement, optionally followed by dubitative -(a)ˇs or a question marker -k: (68) a. nar´uk-a-y-k cook-SA-3S.SG-IR ‘Does it cook?’ (Juank 1982: 12) b. nar´uk-ˇc-i-aˇs cook-NE-3S.SG-DU ‘It perhaps does not cook.’ (Juank 1982: 12) Mood markers appear to occupy the same position as the tense markers. They include imperative, potential and irrealis: (69) a. yu-´a-t´a eat-SA-IM.2S ‘Eat!’ (Juank 1982: 12) b. war´a-s-´aynt-me enjoy-DI-PO-2S.SG ‘You could enjoy it.’ (Juank 1982: 67) c. war´a-s-´a-me enjoy-DI-IE-2S.SG ‘You could have enjoyed it.’ (Juank 1982: 67) Summarising, the Shuar verb can have the following types of verbal affixes: (70)  –  –  –  – / –  – / 

Again, this is only a preliminary sketch. A number of affixes has been left out of con- sideration, including the numerous nominalisers in Shuar.

8 Note the similarity with Aymara uma- ‘to drink’. 4.4 The Jivaroan languages 443

In addition to the negation formed with -ˇca there is also a negative suffix -cu or -ˇcu:9 (71) tak´a-ˇcu work-NE ‘He does not work.’ (Karsten 1935: 554) This suffix may also be added to non-verbal predicates: (72) a. p´ıŋger-a-ˇcu good-EU-NE ‘It is not good.’ (Karsten 1935: 554) b. w´ı-nya-ˇcu 1.SG-G-NE ‘It is not mine.’ (Karsten 1935: 554) Negative imperatives are formed with the ending -aypa [eypya]; this form is optionally shortened:

(73) wini:-(ay)pa come-2S.IM.NE ‘Do not come!’ (Karsten 1935: 554)

There is also a possibility, finally, of forming a negative existential:

(74) ac´a-way not.be-3S.SG ‘There is not.’ (Juank 1982: 6)

Word order Word order is one of the features of the language on which there is firm agreement among the different authors. The basic order is SOV:

(75) ni p´aŋgi unc´urieyncu ´ am´uk-ma 3.SG snake many people kill-PF ‘The snake killed many people.’ (Karsten 1935: 545)

Auxiliaries follow their verbal complement, like the auxiliary puha-.Itisused in progressive constructions together with a gerund ending on the verb:

(76) kanu nah´ana-sa puh´a-hey canoe make-GR be-1S.SG ‘I am making a canoe.’ (Karsten 1935: 555)

9 Cf. Quechua -ˇcu ‘negation’. 444 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Possessors precede possessed elements:

(77) w´ı-nyayacu-ru´ umi ´ 1.SG-G brother-1P.SG blowgun ‘my brother’s blowgun’ (Karsten 1935: 546) Adjectives precede the noun:

(78) unta pinˇcu big hawk ‘the great hawk (eagle)’ (Karsten 1935: 547) Similarly, adverbial modifiers such as the exclamative degree marker ma ti,expressing wonder, precede the adjective:

(79) a. ma ti p´ıŋgera very more beautiful ‘most beautiful’ (Karsten 1935: 547) b. s´uŋgura ´ımya unc´urieyncu ´ am´uk-ma epidemic very many people kill-PF ‘The epidemic has killed very many people.’ (Karsten 1935: 548) Both enclitic and non-enclitic adpositions follow the element they modify:

(80) a. ´ınca-numa river-L ‘in the river’ (Karsten 1935: 558) b. w´aat´aˇsi n´ukkiunta ´ partridge hen like big ‘The partridge is big like a hen.’ (Karsten 1935: 559)

A possible deviation from the prototypical SOV head-final pattern of Shuar is the demon- strative and the relative clause (to be illustrated below). Demonstratives may precede or follow the noun:

(81) a. nu he:a w´ı-nya that house 1S.SG-G ‘That house is mine.’ (Karsten 1935: 550) b. he:a nu, w´ı-nya he:a house that 1.SG-G house ‘That house is mine.’ (Karsten 1935: 550)

The status of nu is not quite clear, however, since it may also modify predicates. Karsten gives examples where for emphasis it both precedes and follows the predicate: 4.4 The Jivaroan languages 445

(82) a. Andiˇce, nuh´ama nu Andiche that ill that ‘Andiche is really ill.’ (Karsten 1935: 550) b. p´a:ndama, nu puh´u-ma nu plantain that be-PF that ‘Is there any plantain?’ (Karsten 1935: 550)

It may be that nu is not a dependent determiner, but a separate emphasis marker, thus not constituting a counterexample to a head-final analysis for Shuar.

4.4.3 Complex sentences in Shuar Complex sentences in Shuar appear to be of at least six types. First, causal and conditional clauses are often formed with the postposition-like complementiser assa:

(83) a. ni h´amaassa ´ wini:-ˇca-ma 3.SG ill SU come-NE-PF ‘Because he is ill, he has not arrived.’ (Karsten 1935: 558) b. amue´ wak´era-maassa ´ sum´ak-ta-hey 2.SG like-PF SU buy-F-1S ‘If you like, I will buy from you.’ (Karsten 1935: 558) As these examples show, adverbial clauses tend to precede main clauses. Another possible strategy, used particularly with temporal and conditional adverbials, is the use of the gerund particle -sa:10

(84) a. ama-sa´ sus´a-ˇcays have-GR give-F.DU ‘If I had, I would give you.’ (Karsten 1935: 558) b. su´ˇ ara namb´era11 nah´ana-sa ih´ermas-ma Shuar feast make-GR fast-PF ‘When a Shuar prepares a feast, he fasts.’ (Karsten 1935: 557)

A third possibility for adverbial clauses is simple juxtaposition. The examples given have the particle -ma on the first verb. This may indicate temporal sequence:

(85) a. ni wini:-ma we´a-ta-hey he arrive-PF go-F-1S ‘When he arrives, we will go.’ (Karsten 1935: 557)

10 Cf. Aymara -sa ‘gerund’. 11 A root similar to nambera ‘feast’ may have been borrowed into Otavalo Quechua (province of Imbabura, Ecuador), where we have namor˜ ‘feast’. This could point to Jivaroan influences in the northern Ecuadorian highlands in pre-Inca times (see chapter 3). 446 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Table 4.5 The Shuar switch-reference system illustrated with the verb ant- ‘to hear’ (from Juank 1982: 76)

–simultaneous simultaneous –simultaneous simultaneous identical subjects identical subjects different subjects different subjects

1 pers. sing. ant-´uk-anant-ak-un ´ ant-´uk-matayant-ak-uy ´ 2 pers. sing. . . .-´uk-am ...-ak-um ...-uk-akmin´ ...-ak-min 3 pers. sing. . . .-uk´ ...-ak(u) ...-uk-matay´ ...-ak-uy 1 pers. plur. . . .-uk-ar(i)´ ...-ak-ur(i) ...-uk-´akrin ...-ak-rin 2 pers. plur. . . .-uk-rum´ ...-ak-rum ...-uk-´akrumin ..-ak-rumin 3 pers. plur. . . .-uk-ar´ ...-uyny-ak(-u) ...-uk-ar-matay´ ...-uyny-ak-uy

b. y´umi yut´uk-ˇca-ma we´a-t-ey water rain-NE-PF go-HO-1S.PL ‘Let us go before it rains.’ (Karsten 1935: 557)

In Juank (1982: 76) there is mention of a switch-reference system for gerunds, including the distinctions presented in table 4.5 (ant- ‘to hear’). Perhaps Karsten’s ma corresponds to third-person-singular (–simultaneous, –identical subject) matay in Juank. There are numerous cases of shortened verbal affixes in Shuar. Finally, sometimes an adverbial clause is formed with the postposed deictic par- ticle nu:

(86) noa, ih´erma-sa puh´u-ma nu, nam´an-ki y´uo-ca-ma woman fast-GR be-PF that meat-DL eat-NE-PF ‘The woman, while she was fasting, did not eat meat.’ (Karsten 1935: 554)

Complement clauses are often formed with the infinitive marker -tinyu:

(87) a. w´ari sum´ak-tinyu winya-hey´ things buy-IF come-1S.SG ‘I have come to buy things.’ (Karsten 1935: 558) b. w´ı-nya´eyncu ´ıs-tinyuwe´a-hey 1.SG-G relative see-IF go-1S.SG ‘I go off to see my relatives.’ (Karsten 1935: 553)

An alternative appears to be the use of the gerund t(u)-sa- of the verb ti- ‘to say’, as cited by Juank (1982: 64):12

12 The use of forms meaning ‘saying’ to indicate intention of the speaker is frequently found in Quechua and in other Andean languages. However, in the lowland varieties of Ecuadorian Quechua adjacent to Shuar it covers the same range as in Shuar, including infinitival purposives. 4.5 Cahuapana 447

(88) a. pa:ntma-n suruk-t´a-h t-sa-n w´ea-hay plantain-AC sell-HO-1S.SG say-GR-1S.SG go-1S.SG ‘I go to sell plantain.’ (Juank 1982: 3) b. iˇs´ıˇcikum-in ´ y-´a-yt-hey namp´ek-ay-h tu-sa-n modest drink-AG-EU-be-1S.SG get.drunk-NE-1S.SG say-GR-1S.SG ‘I am a modest drinker, not wanting to get drunk.’ (Juank 1982: 12) c. wi-ˇsa nek´a-ta-h tu-sa-n t´ıwaker-in´ y-a-yt-hay 1.SG-AD know-HO-1S.SG say-GR-1S.SG very want-AG-EU-be-1S.SG ‘Me too, I am very interested in knowing (it).’ (Juank 1982: 15)

Relative clauses are formed with the deictic particle nu ‘that’ at the end. They can follow their head noun, but may also be extraposed:

(89) w´ı-nyauˇci,sua:ra ˇ ma:-ma nu, ih´erma-sa puh´u-ma 1.SG-G son enemy kill-PF that fast-GR be-PF ‘My son, who killed an enemy, is fasting.’ (Karsten 1935: 551) (90) urutay´ sua:ra ˇ wak´ı-tinyu, ikyama´ we´a-ma nu when Indian return-IF forest go-PF that ‘When will the Indians that went to the forest return?’ (Karsten 1935: 551)

4.5 Cahuapana A small language family is found along the eastern slopes of the northern Peruvian Andes (department of Loreto), Cahuapana, which is made up of two languages, Chayahuita and Jebero. The Chayahuita were contacted first by the Jesuits. The Jebero accepted protection by the missions after 1638 because they were attacked by the Mayna. Of these languages little is known so far. A few features of the grammar of Chayahuita can be reconstructed from a set of phrases in Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (ILV) (1979), and there is a new Chayahuita dictionary available (Hart 1988) with a brief grammatical sketch. Garc´ıa Tom´as (1993–4) constitutes a four-volume col- lection of texts, testimonials, etc. It seems to be a language with a fairly consistent OV pattern. Thus there is adjective–noun order and object–verb order in sentences such as:

(91) panka non13 nowantr-aw big canoe want-1S.SG ‘I want the big canoe.’ (ILV 1979: 72)

13 Notice the similarity with Panoan nonti and Yanesha nonyty ‘canoe’. 448 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

There is also adverb–verb order in expressions such as:

(92) manoton pa-koʔ quickly go-2S.IM.PL ‘Go quickly!’ (ILV 1979: 72)

Case relations are indicated by means of suffixes, such as the locative marker -k; e.g. ins-k ‘where’, non-k ‘in a canoe’ (cf. Hart 1988: 282). Question words appear in clause-initial position, as in:

(93) onpo koˇsi-roʔsaʔ-taʔ kpar-an [cf. Quechua kuˇci ‘pig’; how.much pig-PL-Q take-2S.SG Old Spanish coche] ‘How many pigs did you take (to sell)?’ (Hart 1988: 267)

From expressions such as atari kayoʔ ‘chicken egg’ it appears that in nominal compounds or complex nominals the head is rightmost. There may also be prefixes, however, such as the negative prefix ko- (combined with the negative suffix -wʔ): noya ‘good’ versus ko-noya-wʔ ‘bad’. There is a prohibitive negator ama.14 A striking feature of Chayahuita is the frequent occurrence of compound verbs (Hart 1988: 271, 481–3), in which the first element marks manner or instrument, and the second element the type of action. An example is pʔ-ˇcar-in ‘he/she tears it with much force’ (pʔ- ‘with much force’). Component elements include:

(94) a. first element aʔ- ‘with one’s teeth’, ‘with its beak’ o- ‘lifting’ pʔʔ- ‘with force’, ‘hanging’ toʔ- ‘with one’s foot’ wn- ‘squeezing’ b. second element -ˇca ‘tear’ -ka ‘clash’ -ni ‘finish’ -pas ‘take a piece’ -ta ‘drop’

Bendor-Samuel (1961) documents a similar level of complexity for Jebero verbs, confirming the observation in (94). Striking is the frequent use of directional

14 From Quechua ama,which has the same meaning. 4.6 Bora–Huitoto 449 suffixes:

(95) iya-wk’-wa-t-nˇcaʔ-ððk-aŋ want-come-DR-DF-return.H-3O.PL-GR ‘wanting to come towards them when returning’ (Bendor-Samuel 1961: 106) (96) nampk’-wa-t-ap(a)-ila-lyi-(i)ma climb-DR-DF-CN-TH-3S.PN-and ‘and he is climbing towards . .’ (Bendor-Samuel 1961: 107)

Rivet and Tastevin (1931: 241) note the occurrence of noun incorporation in this language:

(97) ikr-mutu-lk hurt-head-1S.SG.PN ‘My head hurts.’ (Rivet and Tastevin 1913: 241)

Jebero has the interesting feature of two inclusive first persons, a singular and a plural. See, for instance, the set of possessive nominal suffixes in (98).

(98) -wk 1.SG -wiððk 1.PL.EX -mapuʔ 1.SG.IV (=1.D) -mapuʔ-waʔ 1.PL.IV -pŋŋ 2.SG -pŋŋ-maʔ 2.PL -nŋŋ 3.SG -nŋŋ-maʔ 3.PL (Bendor-Samuel 1961: 97)

4.6 Bora–Huitoto This family has two main branches (Aschmann 1993): A. Huitoto–Ocaina and B. Bora– Muinane. Branch A consists of Ocaina and Huitoto, which in turn can be subdivided into Npode and the cluster of Mnca, Murui and Huitoto Muinane. This branch has over a thousand speakers in Peru. Branch B consists of Bora Muinane and Bora (including its dialect Mira˜na) and has about 1,500 speakers in Peru. All these languages are also spoken in Colombia. The unity and internal structure of this family needs to be studied in more detail, since the relationship between Huitoto and Bora is rather remote. Aschmann (1993) concludes, on the basis of lexical comparison, a definite relationship between the two main branches, with 20 per cent shared vocabulary. From the Huitoto Muinane phrases in ILV (1979) it is clear that we are dealing with a consistent head-final SOV language with fairly transparent mostly suffixal morphology. There are prenominal possessors and postpositions; prepositional phrases precede verbs and adjectives precede nouns. Verbal negation is expressed with a suffix. The form of the personal affixes is very similar to that of the free forms. According to Petersen 450 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Table 4.6 Phoneme inventory of Bora (based on Thiesen 1996)∗

Coarticulated Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar labiovelar Glottal

Plain stops p t k kp ʔ Aspirated stops ph th kh Plain affricates cc ˇ Aspirated affricates ch cˇh Fricatives β x Nasals m n (ny) Sonorants r (y)

Front Central Back

High i ɯ Mid e o Low a

∗ Bora has long or doubled vowels, each vowel being potentially tone-bearing, and a distinction between high tone and low tone. Most consonants have palatalised allomorphs; ny and y are the palatalised counterparts of n and r, respectively. and Pati˜no (2000), the Huitoto verbal complex roughly consists of the following main components:

(99) Root Predicate Mood/aspect/ Tense/voice Participant -ta causative negation/ -d/-t (active) -kwe (1st person) verbalisers nominal -ka/-ga (passive) -o (2nd person) classifiers -dzˇ (future passive) -e (3rd person)

Thiesen’sgrammar of Bora (1996) gives a good overview of that language. The phoneme inventory is as in table 4.6. There are two tones, high and low. Only in word-final position can there be two adjacent syllables with low tone. There is palatalisation of a number of consonants after i, and in some specific cases after a. There are both suffixes and prefixes in the language, but suffixes predominate. The (animate) personal pronouns are the following (Thiesen 1996: 33).

(100) o´o 1.SG mɯʔɯʔ-chi 1.D.MS.EX mɯɯɯʔ´ʔa 1.PL.EX mɯʔɯʔ-ph 1.D.FE.EX me´e 1.D.IV me´e 1.PL.IV ɯɯ´ 2.SG am´ ɯʔɯʔ-chi 2.D.MS am´ ɯɯɯʔ´ʔa 2.PL am´ ɯʔɯʔ-ph 2.D.FE ti´ıpye 3.SG.MS ti´ıthye-c´ hi 3.D.MS ti´ıthye 3.PL ti´ıˇce 3.SG.FE ti´ıthye-p´ h 3.D.FE 4.7 The Zaparoan languages 451

While the pronouns distinguish for gender, prenominal possessive markers do not (Thiesen 1996: 51–2):

(101) tha- 1P.SG thaʔ-xya ‘my house’ ti- 2P.SG tiʔ-xya ‘your house’ i- 3P.SG iʔ-xya ‘his/her/their (own) house’

The third-person possessive prefix is used when the possessor is identical to the subject of the clause; with other third persons a full possessor pronoun is required. The exact shape of the possessor prefix is determined by the sound features of the possessed noun. One of the most striking features of the language is the nominal classifier system, which is quite complex. The animate classifiers are marked for feminine and masculine, and have a singular, dual, plural distinction, just like the personal pronoun system, to which they are related morphologically (Thiesen 1996: 102). The inanimate simple classifiers include: (102) -ʔe trees, plants -kho sticks, etc. -ʔa´am sheets, books, etc. -kpa flat objects, boards -pa cartons, boxes, etc. -x flat, thin and round objects, like disks -m canoes and other vessels -i´ıʔyo extended objects -ne objects in general (Thiesen 1996: 102–3)

In addition to the animate and inanimate classifiers, there are classifiers based on verbal roots that mark the shape or quality an entity has adopted:

(103) ɯ´me-ʔe-kpay´´ a´aɯ tree-CL:tree-bent.over ‘a bent over tree’ (Thiesen 1996: 103)

Finally, some classifiers also function as separate nouns, such as kho´´ox´ ‘day’, which can function as a classifier when augmented with x-,asinthe-x-k´ ho´ox ‘that day’ (Thiesen 1996: 104). The classifiers play a pervasive role in the structuring of the grammar and discourse of the Bora–Huitoto language family, ensuring referential cohesion.

4.7 The Zaparoan languages The Zaparoan languages are all in a precarious state. The following languages remain: Andoa, Arabela, Cahuarano, Iquito and Z´aparo itself. The Z´aparo language, which once was widely spoken, is almost extinct in Ecuador, having been replaced by Ecuadorian Amazonian Quechua. Some speakers are said to be immigrants from Peru. Apart from 452 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Z´aparo, all members of the family are exclusively found in Peru, and all languages have no more than a handful of speakers, most of them bilingual in either Quechua or Spanish. The Ecuadorian Z´aparo speakers live in the province of Pastaza. The Andoa were brought into a reducci´on in 1701, and in 1737 a Dominican mission was established. The Iquito were unknown to the colonisers before the eighteenth century, and since 1737 they stayed in the missions intermittently (Chirif and Mora 1977). Peeke (1962) provides an interesting sketch of Z´aparo morphosyntax. It appears to be a language with relatively free word order, and no person marking on the verb. Rather remarkably, it appears that a lexical subject, even an element like no-ka ‘it’ (third person singular neutral), is almost always obligatory. Possibly, -ka functions as an impersonal classifier, comparable to Bora -ne (cf. section 4.6):

(104) i´akoma´no-k´a anawkt-k´anaw very strongly 3.SG-NU hurt-CN 3.SG ‘It hurts him very much.’ (Peeke 1962: 132) (105) no-k´aˇcat´-ka 3.SG-NU rain-CN ‘It rains.’ (Peeke 1962: 148) (106) noar´ı no-k´anasnt´a-ka after 3.SG-NU F cool-CN ‘Afterwards it will cool off.’ (Peeke 1962: 135)

Z´aparo has a four-vowel system (i, ,o,a), a fairly simple syllable structure, and fourteen consonants, including c and ʔ.In(106) the future auxiliary na precedes the main verb, as it does in (107). However, other markers are suffixed to the verb:

(107) k´ana-ha na in´aw-ha no-ka no 1.PL-EM F give-F 3.SG-NU 3.SG ‘We shall give it to him.’ (Peeke 1962: 137)

In compounds the nucleus is last:

(108) sawanaw iawka [sawanawka]´ cotton thread ‘cotton thread’ (Peeke 1962: 150)

The same we see in possessor constructions, (109)–(110), and adjective–noun combi- nations, (111):

(109) kina n´ıata 2P.PL town ‘your (plur.) town’ (Peeke 1962: 152) 4.8 The Tucanoan languages 453

(110) ko-´ano ari´awko 1P.SG-mother dog ‘my mother’s dog’ (Peeke 1962: 153) (111) r´oto-ka mar´ayha ik´ı-ˇca slippery-NU fish be-CN ‘It is a slippery fish.’ (Peeke 1962: 158)

Notice that there appears to be no overt subject in (111) (except for the enclitic neuter element -ka), and that in (110) the person marker is proclitic. Both these phenomena are illustrated in (112):

(112) ko-nok´ı:ˇca-ka ik´ı-ˇca 1S.SG-see-NU be-CN ‘It is my custom of seeing.’ (Peeke 1962: 147)

Here the person marker is attached to the nominalised verb. There is double negation:

(113) taykwakom´´ ı-no k´ork cirip´ˇ aka ira [cf. Ec. Quechua kulyki ‘money’] not 1.SG have-NE money papaya B ‘I have no money for papayas.’ (Peeke 1962: 130–1)

The person marker paradigm is given in (114):

(114) kwi/ko(-) /k- 1.SG , kaʔno 1.PL.EX pa /p- 1.PL.IV caˇ (-) /k- 2.SG kina, kiʔno 2.PL naw /no /n- 3.SG na 3.PL no-ka 3.SG-NU

4.8 The Tucanoan languages The Tucanoan languages in Peru are Angutero, Orej´on or Coto, and Secoya or Pioj´e. Secoya is also spoken in Ecuador. There are several other groups speaking closely related Tucanoan languages in Ecuador: the Siona and the Tetet´e. All these languages belong to the western branch. The Siona and Secoya are growing into a single community of an estimated 600 people. Of Tetet´e, closely related to Siona, there were only two speakers left in 1969. Although its speakers have dwindled to an insignificant number, Siona was once important enough to be considered a lengua general by the Spanish colonial administration (Ortega Ricaurte 1978); cf. chapter 2. 454 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Table 4.7 Phoneme inventory of Huao (based on Saint and K. L. Pike 1962)∗

Labial Dental Palatal Velar

Voiceless stops p t (ˇc) k Implosive click (p<) Voiced stops b d ∼ ry∼ dy g Nasals m n ny ŋ Implosive nasal (m<) Glide w

Oral Nasal Front Central/back Front Central/back

High i ˜ı Mid e oe˜ ˜ o Low æ aæ˜ ˜ a

∗ The extra-systemic soundsc, ˇ p< and m< are limited to ono- matopoeic expressions and exclamations. All sounds are subject to allophonic variation. The phonemes o and o˜ vary between back and central and can take the character of a glide ([γ ], [γ˜]) in non-nuclear position.

4.9 Small families and supposed language isolates in Ecuador In addition to these larger and smaller language families there are a number of families with only a few members and language isolates. We will discuss these starting with the remaining Ecuadorian languages. In the Ecuadorian oriente several small tribes are found along the Colombian border. They are the linguistically isolated Cof´an and western Tucanoan tribes already men- tioned in chapter 2. In the Ecuadorian lowland province of Pastaza, another linguistic isolate is found. It is Huao, the language of a tribe alternatively referred to as Auca, Huaorani, Sabela or Auishiri. This tribe for long remained hostile to outside contacts. Most linguistic work on this language has been done by the Summer Institute linguist Catherine Peeke (1973, 1979), and Rachel Saint has collected a number of Huao texts (cf. E. G. Pike and Saint 1988). The phoneme inventory has been described by Saint and K. L. Pike (1962) as in table 4.7. There are three marginal phonemes: /ˇc/, used in onomatopoetic descriptions; /p

There is fairly extensive verb suffixing, as in:

(115) apæ˜ -ne-ga-d˜an(i)-˜ı-pa speak-CL:mouth-RM-3S.PL-IL-AF ‘They spoke long ago.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 119)

There is evidence of noun classification; the examples given all involve body parts, as -ne- ‘mouth’ above, -miœ˜-‘tail’ and -po- ‘finger’:

(116) bo-t˜o ta:-miæ˜ -kæ-bo-˜ı-pa 1.SG-PU cut-CL:tail-IC-1S.SG-IL-AF ‘I am going to cut off his tail.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 125) (117) deye ˜ı-ma˜ıw˜e˜e-n˜e˜e-po-k˜a-ta-pa spider.monkey this-like long.ago-L exist-CL:finger-3S.SG-PA-AF ‘Long ago the spider monkey had four fingers and a thumb.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 129)

These forms also illustrate a number of other features of the language: the contrast between past and remote-past tenses, the presence of aspect categories such as inceptive, and of evidentials, including an inferential marker, the use of person markers, and case suffixes. The suffixal person markers differentiate for number (singular, dual and plural), gender (animate, inanimate) and (feminine) honorific. The second- and third-person dual and plural forms do not only refer to number, but are also used to denote specific relations in the kinship system (Peeke 1973: 40). Note that all stop symbols in Peeke’s inventory of person markers reproduced below have to be pronounced as nasals when preceded by a nasal vowel. So -d˜adi is either pronounced [d˜ani], or [n˜ani]; -k˜a is either [k˜a] or [ŋa],˜ etc.

(118) singular dual plural 1 -bo -b¯oda -b˜odi (exclusive) -b˜o (inclusive) 2 -bi -b˜ıda -b˜ıdi 3 animate -k˜a -da -d˜adi 3 inanimate ∅

The feminine honorific forms are designed to address mothers and women of an equiv- alent rank in relation to the speaker. They distinguish between second and third person, which are -b˜ı and -d˜a, respectively. 456 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

The case markers include:

(119) -ba˜ı ‘like’ -d˜e ‘in’ -d˜o ‘toward another, to’ -ke ‘limit, until’

The case markers in (119) that have voiced initials are subject to nasalisation as described for the person markers above. There is no marking for subjects and objects, which are differentiated through the (fairly strict) SOV constituent order. An indication of the complexities of the interaction of person marking and subordination is given in (120). (Note that -d˜ani refers to second- person plural in permissive complement clauses such as illustrated in the following example.)

(120) m˜a-n˜ani a-te “p˜on˜o-m˜ıni kæ-m˜o-e-d˜ani”a-n ˜ yo-˜ ŋa-te˜ , ba baa-n˜ ˜ ani have-3S.PL see-SU give-2S.PL eat-1O.PL.EX-PM-2S.PL say-PR-3S-SU no no say-3S.PL {When, seeing they had, the (others) said: you give (you permit) us to eat, they said no no.} ‘Since they had lots of corn, when the others asked: “Can we have some of your corn to eat”, they refused.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 115)

The subordination marker -te generally marks identical subjects, but not always.

4.10 Small families and supposed language isolates in Peru In the northern half of the Peruvian lowlands, the linguistic situation is characterised by the presence of several language isolates and small families. On the eastern slopes of the Andes two families are on the verge of extinction, Chol´on (discussed in detail below in section 4.11) and Muniche. Muniche is spoken in the village of Muniches on the Paranapura river (department of Loreto) (Gibson 1996). The unclassified and nearly extinct Taushiro language of the Tigre river (department of Loreto) has been mentioned in connection with Zaparoan (cf. Fabre 2001: 1007). Kaufman (1994) gives evidence for a possible genetic relation between Taushiro, the extinct Mayna or Omurano language (once spoken on the Urituyacu river in Loreto) and Candoshi (see below). Another unclassified and possibly extinct language of the Peruvian lowlands is Au(i)shiri or Tekiraka, once spoken near lake Vacacocha in the Curaray river area (Tessmann 1930). In spite of the similarity in the name, the vocabulary given by Tessmann indicates no relationship with Auishiri, one of the alternative designations of the (see above section 4.9). 4.10 Small families and supposed isolates in Peru 457

Further north, Candoshi, Shapra or Murato is the last member of a small family; other members were contacted during the sixteenth century (cf. chapter 3: sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2). It has often been classified with the neighbouring Jivaroan languages, but David Payne (1990) argues that this is a misclassification due to borrowing. Shapra also refers to a variety of Candoshi spoken by a rather isolated subgroup. The Murato were first contacted in 1744, but resisted missionary efforts of the Jesuits in 1748 (Chirif and Mora 1977). Further east in Loreto, Urarina or Simacu is a language isolate with a few thousand speakers. The group is now also known by its own denomination Kach´a. Based on the sentences given in ILV (1979: 139–42), we can draw the following preliminary sketch of the language. In noun phrases, adjectives (actually stative verbs) follow nouns:

(121) aka helaher˜ı: ‘cold water’ aka aharot˜ı: ‘hot water’

Possessors and demonstratives precede the noun, however:

(122) a. i: kra: ‘your name’ i: lureri ‘your house’ b. ka: nenaha kra: this settlement name ‘the name of this settlement’ c. ka: nkekra: this river name ‘the name of this river’

We have the order modifier–modified:

(123) atawari tahe ‘chicken egg’

The object precedes the verb:

(124) a. kan ama- Atalaya- 1.SG take-IM Atalaya-AL ‘Take me to Atalaya!’ b. karay abio:n sar--ˇce for.me airplane push-IM-PL ‘Please push the airplane!’ 458 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Information status is marked with clause-final particles, such as the question clitic -na in (125a):

(125) a. kna-a-na hurt-3S-Q ‘Does it hurt?’ b. kna-to-a hurt-VE-3S ‘It hurts.’ c. kna-i hurt-3S.NE ‘It doesn’t hurt.’

Question words are fronted. They include:

(126) dza ‘what?’, ‘who?’ dza-bana ‘when?’ dza-el˜o ‘in which direction?’ dza-hia ‘along where?’ dza-toan-˜ey ‘how?’ [tona ‘compare’, -˜ey ‘gerund’] dz ‘where?’

There is evidence of a demonstrative paradigm intersecting with the question-word system (-hia indicates location in a wide sense).

(127) dza-hia ‘whereabout?’ ta-hia ‘over there’ ka-hia ‘here’

It is difficult to gain a good picture of the morphology, except that it is suffixal. There are a great many suffixes and about twelve suffix positions. Cajas Rojas (1990) deals with the complex interaction between (progressive) nasali- sation and nasal weakening in Urarina. The language is currently being studied by Knut Olawsky.15 The Zaparoan family, mentioned above, and the Peba–Yagua family fill part of the space separating the from the Colombian and Ecuadorian border. Peba– Yagua is now represented by a single language, Yagua. Yameo, another language of the same family, became extinct in the 1960s. Doris Payne (1986) and Payne and Payne (1990) contain extensive data on Yagua.Near the place where Peru meets with Colombia and Brazil the isolate Ticuna is spoken (cf. section 2.20).

15 We thank Knut Olawsky for his revision of the Urarina examples given in this section. 4.10 Small families and supposed isolates in Peru 459

There are two languages in the southern Peruvian lowlands which have been mis- classified as Arawakan: Culina and Harakmbut. The Culina live on both sides of the Brazilian border. There is a larger Culina population in Brazil. Culina belongs to the Araw´afamily; the Culina constituted a warrior group and were first sighted in 1869 by the English explorer Chandless; in the 1890s they suffered intensive exploitation and by the end of the 1940s they established themselves in the Alto Pur´us (Chirif and Mora 1977). Harakmbut (spoken in Madre de Dios) has long been considered a language isolate known by several names. Adelaar (2000), however, has argued a link with the Katukina language family in Brazil. There are several dialects which fall into two large clus- ters (Helberg Ch´avez 1990: 227–8). Toyoeri and Huachipaeri form one cluster, while the other is formed by Sapiteri, Arasaeri and Amarakaeri, which is the best known and has the largest number of speakers. It has been studied by Helberg Ch´avez (1984, 1990). After an initial incursion by the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, a new attempt to conquer Madre de Dios was made by the Spaniards in 1566. The Huachipaeri managed to attack highland haciendas from time to time in the colonial period. Towards the end of the nine- teenth century the Toyoeri were decimated by the infamous rubber-baron Fitzcarraldo, an event which resulted in an internecine war between the survivors and other Harakmbut subtribes (Gray 1996). In 1950 there was successful renewed contact with Dominican missionaries. Helberg Ch´avez (1990) provides detailed information about the highly complex struc- ture of the Amarakaeri verb. Verbscan have both prefixes and suffixes, and a number of se- mantic categories can be marked on the verb: transitivity, causativity, intensive/extensive, and person, tense/mood/aspect, and polarity. The personal markers, pronominal and pre- fixal, are (Helberg Ch´avez 1990: 243–4):

(128) 1.SG ndoʔ ih- 2.SG on˜ iʔ- 3.SG k˜en oʔ- 1.PL oro oʔ- 2.PL opdnmbo-/m˜o- 3.PL k˜en-˜o-myon ˜ ʔ-

Twoexamples can serve to illustrate the complexities of Harakmbut verbal morphology, which includes a complex system of classifiers marking shape:

(129) ih-waʔ-pet-nda-piʔ ˜ıh-n˜o-p˜o-˜e-˜ı 1S.SG-go-PO-IT-DU 1.SG-CL:centre-CL:round.form-know-1.SG ‘I think I will go a long time from now.’ (Helberg Ch´avez 1990: 239) 460 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

The classifier system has been described in some detail by Hart (1963): morphemes referring to body parts are often combined with morphemes denoting more abstract spatial features. These can occur in nouns, but also in adjectives and verbs. An example of a nominal complex is (130), containing a nominalising classifier prefix:

(130) wa-pa-pi-k-ti-pi N-CL:rod-CL:stick-CL:head-CL:extension-CL:stick ‘shin’ (Hart 1963: 3)

The data in ILV (1973) allow us to draw some preliminary typological conclusions as well. Compounds have the order modifier–modified, and the same holds for adjective– noun and determiner–noun order: (131) a. bakaon ˜ ʔw˜eh cow milk ‘cows’ milk’ b. kargŋ w˜eʔey˜ cold water ‘cold water’ c. ˜ın wa-km˜aiʔ this N-CL:pill ‘this pill’

Case is expressed through suffixes:

(132) ˜ın-te this-L ‘here’ iʔ-m˜aiʔ-po 2S.SG-drink-IS ‘while you drink...’

4.11 Chol´on We now will provide a sketch of Chol´on, a language of the upper Huallaga valley in northern Peru, north of the town of Tingo Mar´ıa. There was also a language closely related to Chol´on, Hibito. Only a few elderly people remembered Chol´on until recently (reportedly in Si´on, department of San Mart´ın). Both Chol´on and Hibito are now probably extinct. Chol´on is discussed in some detail below. This language has been documented in a number of sources: – Pedro de la Mata’s (1748) Arte de la lengua cholona. The manuscript was purchased by the British Library in 1863 and has been – rather unfaithfully and only partly – transcribed by Julio Tello (1923: 690–750). We went back to a filmed copy of the British Museum text, which has been prepared for publication by Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus. – Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on’s (1985 [1782–90]) comparative word list of 43 items gathered from speakers in the same mission areas (conversiones), partic- ularly the conversi´on de Hivitos. The list includes several other languages besides Chol´on and ‘Hivito’ (see section 3.9.2). – G¨unter Tessmann’s (1930) 30-item word list from his large comparative study of northeastern Peru, based on data provided by Harvey Baessler from an old man living in Pachiza. 4.11 Chol´on 461

4.11.1 The Chol´on lexicon and relationship with Hibito There is some about the genetic relationship between Chol´on and Hibito. Most scholars, and most convincingly Rivet (1949), have argued that the two languages are closely related, but Torero (1986: 533) casts doubt on this claim. In our view, the lex- ical correspondences strongly support the relationship. Pedro de la Mata, at the end of his Chol´on grammar, gives a list of both the Chol´on- and the Hibito-speaking towns, presumably intending his grammar to be used in both. Consider the following items, taken from Pedro de la Mata (PM), Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on (MC) and Tessmann (T), which surely belong to the core vocabulary of both languages. This makes Torero’s suggestion that shared lexicon has resulted from extensive language contact less plausible:

(133) Chol´on Hibito tree, stick mech (PM), mees=ngup˜ (MC), mixs (MC), mesˇ (T) mitˇs (T) ¯ water cot (PM), qu˜ot (MC), k¨o˘ ta (T) cachi (MC), otˇsj (T) daughter nu˜ (PM), -˜nu (MC) noo˜ (MC) son pul (PM), -pul (MC) pool (MC) fruit queniya (MC) llagna (MC) woman ila (PM), yla (MC), hil´a (T) etlec (MC), ud¯u, alu (T) man nun (PM), num (MC), l¯un(o) (T) nuum (MC), n¯um, nun (T) father nguch ‘his/her father’ (PM) cotc (MC) mother nguetz, neetz˜ , n˜guech queec (MC) ‘his/her mother’ (PM) die ngoli˜ =cho (MC), calgesquim (MC) col- (PM) black zal, tzal, chal (PM) uts´almana (T) bone chel (PM, MC) chepce (MC) one an- (PM), ans- (T) ets´ı (T) two ip- (PM), hips- (T) optˇs¯e (T) three is- (PM), hies- (T) utsi´ (T) house yip, (t)zip (PM), h¯ıp(o) (T) ¯ıp (T) earth pei, pey (PM), lluspey (MC), puts16 (T) p¯eij (T) head setch (PM), mutsitˇs´e (T) s´otˇsa (T) stone ta (PM), t¯a (T) tˇs¯e (T)

16 Compare Culli pus ∼ pos ‘earth’. 462 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Sound correspondences may include:

(134) Chol´on Hibito tace ˇ , ciˇ c, ccˇ oa u o:, u:

There are also a number of items which do not correspond, but part of the non- correspondence may simply be due to the elicitation procedure. Of Hibito, no more than fifty words are known: those recorded by Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on and by Tessmann. Avery interesting case involves the Chol´on words for ‘father’ and ‘mother’, which are regularly inflected with person prefixes except for the suppletive third-person form, as Pedro de la Mata notes:

(135) ‘father’ ‘mother’ a-pa a-paŋ 1P.SG mi-pa mi-paŋ 2P.SG.MS pi-pa pi-paŋ 2P.SG.FE ŋuˇc ŋeˇc 3P.SG

The last two forms, however, can be regularly derived from *ŋ-kuˇc and *ŋ-keˇc,which presumably contain the older forms for ‘father’ and ‘mother’, respectively, if we take the Hibito evidence into account.

4.11.2 Gender-determined language use Certain forms of Chol´on language use are determined by the gender of the (singular) addressee. Consider first the contrast between the following examples:

(136) a. inˇcam-ma what-MS ‘What do you say or want (man)?’ b. inˇcam-pa what-FE ‘What do you say or want (woman)?’

The same contrast with m for masculine forms and p for feminine forms we find with second-person-singular prefixes: 4.11 Chol´on 463

(137) a- 1P.SG a-kcok ‘my box’ [kacok ‘box’] mi- 2P.SG.MS mi-kcok ‘your (masc.) box’ pi- 2P.SG.FE pi-kcok ‘your (fem.) box’

We find p for feminine also in the contrasting address forms: there is an -ey ending for men, and -pey for women.

4.11.3 Chol´on phonology On the basis of the historical sources it is not easy to get a clear idea of Chol´on phonology. Pedro de la Mata developed elaborate transcription conventions in his Arte,but does not indicate with which sounds his diacritics correspond. Tessmann, however, uses a much more uniform and precise system, so that we have a reasonable general idea. The sound inventory is roughly as in table 4.8. Vowel length is not distinctive, according to Pedro de la Mata, and there is no contrastive stress. Stress is word final, except on certain verb tenses, where we have stress on the penultimate syllable. For the notation of Chol´on we use a spelling based on a reconstruction of the Chol´on sound system developed by Alexander-Bakkerus (in preparation).17 Doubled consonants, which are usually presented as alternatives for simple consonants in de la Mata’s grammar, are written as single consonants. There is evidence of harmony for high vowels in the prefixes, as can be seen in the following contrasts:

(138) ki-coc ‘our ’ ku-cuˇc ‘our alfalfa’ [yoc ‘guinea-pig’, i-coc ‘their guinea pig’ u-cuˇc ‘their alfalfa’ yuˇc ‘alfalfa’]

Syllables tend to be simple, as will become clear from the examples below.

4.11.4 The principal grammatical features of Chol´on As far as the morphology of this language is concerned, a large part of Chol´on mor- phology is clearly suffixal and agglutinative, but person markers are prefixal. There is some compounding as well. There is a complex set of morphophonological adjustment rules for the third-person prefix, as will be shown below. Chol´on has a number of word classes, in addition to nouns and verbs, which are the two dominant categories in the language and to which we will return below.

17 Much of the morphological analysis underlying the interpretation of the example sentences in this section is also based on Alexander-Bakkerus’s unpublished work. 464 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Table 4.8 The sound inventory of Chol´on (based on Alexander-Bakkerus, forthcoming)∗

Labial Dental Palatal Velar Laryngeal

Voiceless stops p t k ʔ Voiced stops (b) (d) (g) Fricatives (f) ssh ˇ Affricates cc ˇ Nasals m n ny ŋ Vibrant (r) Laterals l ly Glides w y

Front Central Back

High i u Mid e o Low a

∗ The elements in parentheses occur only in Spanish loan words. The exact value of the mid vowels is uncertain; the assumption of a glottal stop phoneme is tentative.

Exclamatives Just like Quechua, Chol´on has a wide variety of exclamatives, some of which resemble those of that language:

(139) ah neutral exclamation, also: to scare children aha ‘what a shame!’ aku ‘affectionate, pity’ alew ‘cold’ alyaw, atih ‘pain’ ampaˇslen ‘pity’ anih empek, ma empek ‘very well! well done!’ anyiw ‘desire’ aŋ ‘admiration’ iˇcay, iˇcakay ‘disapproval’ iˇci, iˇcyey ‘fear’ iˇsiw ‘how wicked, how insolent!’ onew ‘anger or annoyance’ oy ‘concession or assent’ uˇcu, uˇcuw ‘how hot!’ unyuw ‘marvel, praise’ 4.11 Chol´on 465

Conjunctions and clausal enclitics There is a small set of sentential affixes, which includes:

(140) a. -le ‘or’, interrogative marker b. -pit ‘and, also’ c. -simaly ‘and, also’ (used with verbs) d. -(w)a ‘as for’ (topic marker) e. -(w)aˇco ‘and, but’

The form sim-aly ‘and, etc.’ may consist of sim,which occurs rarely by itself, and the delimitative clitic -(a)ly. Some examples of sentential affixes are given below.

(141) mi-le ok-le ki-lya-kt-an18 2.SG-IR 1.SG-IR 1S.PL-go-F-IA ‘Shall I go, or will you go?’ (142) ok a-lya-kt-an mi-na-ha-waˇco mu-mutaŋ-ha-te [putam ‘village’] 1.SG 1S.SG-go-F-IA 2-PU-PL-but 2P.SG-RL.village-PL-L ‘I will go, but you (plural) (will stay) in your village.’

Question words Question words include the following, where -(a)m is a question marker:

(143) ol-am ‘who?’ inˇca-m ‘what?’ intoŋko-m ‘which?’ ana-mek-am ‘how much/many?’ [mek ‘all’]

They can be modified by the enclitic conjunction -pit ‘also’ and then have an indefinite meaning:19

(144) ol-pit ‘someone’ inˇca-pit ‘something’ intoŋko-pit ‘anyone’

18 There is evidence that m and ŋ were the only nasals occurring in word-final as well as root- final position in Chol´on, and that the imperfective suffix -(a)n wasinfact pronounced [(a)ŋ]. Likewise, the most likely interpretation for the final nasal in -mutaŋ- (∼ mutam), in (142), is a velar nasal. 19 Compare Quechua -pas/-pis with the same meaning. 466 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

For the use of the question words, consider the following cases:

(145) a. inˇca-m ma-kot-an what-Q 2.SG.AP-be-IA ‘What do you have?’ b. inˇca-pit-ma a-kot-p-an what-AD-NE 1.SG.AP-be-NE-IA ‘I have nothing.’ c. a-paŋ-a ol-am a-ˇsot-a ol-lol-amce-kt-an-pit ˇ 20 1P.SG-mother-TO who-Q 1P.SG-brother-TO who-PL-Q 3S.PL-be-IA-AD ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ d. ana-mek-am hayu putam-te i-toŋ21 how.many-all-Q person village-L 3S.PL-be/sit ‘How many Indians are there in the village?’

It is clear that many question words contain the element -am but the data are not sufficient to determine what exactly this form means. Possibly, it has a function comparable with Quechua -taq (see section 3.2.6).

Pronouns There is a regular personal pronoun system. Notice that the second-person-plural form can be derived synchronically from its singular counterpart:

(146) ok ‘I’ ki-ha ‘we’ mi ‘you’ mi-na-ha ‘you’ sa ‘he’ ci-haˇ ‘they’

These pronouns can be case-marked as well. Some of them also form the basis for the person prefixes, as we will see below. In addition, there are demonstrative pronouns, encoding three degrees of distance:

(147) ko ‘this here’ iŋko ‘that there’ pe ‘that over there’

20 The internal vowel of the verb root kot ‘to be’ is suppressed in order to avoid the occurrence of a non-initial open syllable; it does not happen in (145a), where the root is preceded by an applicative prefix (Alexander-Bakkerus, personal communication). 21 The verb -toŋ ‘to sit’ is exceptional in that it does not take the imperfective suffix -(a)n in non-applicative forms with a third-person subject. 4.11 Chol´on 467

Nouns Nouns can appear inflected or uninflected for person, and there is some nominal morphol- ogyaswell. There is the possibility of nominal gender marking through compounding with nun ‘man’ and ila ‘woman’:

(148) nun hayu/hayunun ‘man’ [hayu ‘person, Indian’] ila hayu / hayu ila ‘woman’ kuˇci nun ‘boar’ [kuˇci ‘pig’, old Spanish coche] atelypa nun ‘rooster’ [atelypa ‘chicken’, Quechua atawal ypa]

There is a large set of nominal suffixes, which are either derivational, or mark case distinctions, and are then postpositional in nature. Derivational affixes are:

(149) a. -(a)ly ‘only...’22 b. -(k)e ‘made of...’, ‘child of (dead persons)’, ‘former’, ‘the late...’(nominal past) c. -(k)ely ‘having excess of...’ [possibly -(k)e + -(a)ly] d. -puˇc ‘totally’ e. -pulyem ‘and natural counterpart’ f. -ciw23 ‘having a lack of...’, ‘in need of’

Examples of these affixes are given below:

(150) cow-nik-alˇ y louse-C-DL ‘with only lice’ (151) a. ampal-e [ampal ‘past’] ‘thing of the past’ b. ceˇˇ co-ke [ceˇˇ co ‘silver’] ‘(made) of silver’ c. Juana-ke u-nyu Juana-NP 3P.SG-daughter ‘daughter of the late Juana’ (152) seˇc-ely [seˇc ‘head’] ‘big headed’

22 Cf. Quechua -lya with the same meaning. 23 In Pedro de la Mata ziu or chiu. 468 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

(153) a-lek-puˇc [a- ‘one’, -lek ‘ten’] ‘completely ten’ (154) a. ŋuˇc-pulyem [ŋuˇc ‘3P.SG.father’] ‘father and son’ b. ŋeˇc-pulyem [ŋeˇc ‘3P.SG.mother’] ‘mother and daughter’ (155) a. a-le-ciw [a-le ‘1P.SG-tooth’] ‘without my teeth’, ‘I, without teeth’ b. a-le-saly-ciw ‘without any of my teeth’, ‘I, absolutely toothless’

The expression kamayok ‘person in charge of . . .’, from Quechua kamayuq (same meaning), can also be used as a postposition-like element:

(156) weˇsa kamayok [weˇsa ‘sheep’, from Spanish oveja] ‘shepherd’ palol kamayok [palol ‘door’] ‘doorman’

Case markers and postpositions are sometimes difficult to distinguish because de la Mata does not indicate word boundaries consistently. They include:

(157) -he ‘for’, ‘aim’, benefactive case -(lyak)pat ‘by’, ‘because of’, instrumental case -(lyak)tep ‘from’, ablative case -manap ‘between’, ‘after’ -nik ‘with’, ‘company’, comitative case -(pat)le ‘until, up to’, limitative case -te locative case, allative case -tu motion towards a person, allative case (158) Examples of -he benefactive: a. ok-he 1.SG.PU-B ‘for me’ b. Dios-he a-lu.pakt-an [lu ‘entrails’, pakot- ‘to be there’] God-B 1S.SG-think/consider-IA ‘I think of God.’ 4.11 Chol´on 469

c. a-cm-o-k-te-he [yam-/cam- ‘to learn’] 1S.SG-learn-TV-N-L-B ‘so that I can learn’ d. kaˇc-he a-kt-an maize-B 1S.SG-be-IA ‘I need maize’ e. a-am-o-k-he-na a-ki-an 1S.SG-eat-TV-N-B-QU 1S.SG-feel-IA ‘I feel like eating.’ (159) Examples of -pat instrumental: a. a-moncey-pat a-hl-an [hil ‘to speak’] 1P.SG-tongue-IS 1S.SG-speak-IA ‘I speak with my tongue.’ b. mi-pat 2.SG.PU-IS ‘because of you’ c. a-lek libra kuka-pat a-coˇcok a-ms-i [pis ‘to buy’, ‘to ask for’] one-ten pound coca-IS 1P.SG-trousers 1S.SG-3O.SG.buy-PF ‘With my ten pounds of coca I bought my trousers.’ (160) Example of -tep ablative: Espiritu.Santo i-cmey-tep hayu ∅-ki-i Holy.Ghost 3P.SG-creation-AB man 3S.SG-become-PF ‘Man was born from the Holy Ghost.’ (161) Examples of -nik comitative: a. ceˇˇ co-nik a-kt-an money-C 1S.SG-be-IA ‘I have money.’ (lit. ‘I am with money.’) b. ki-ha-nik 1.PL-PL.PU-C ‘with us’ c. inˇcana-m mi-mot-nik me-kt-an how-Q 2P.SG-name-C 2.SG-be-IA ‘What is your name?’ (lit. ‘How are you with your name?’)24 (162) Example of -le limitative: liman-le mountain-LI ‘up to the mountains’

24 For the combination -nik-aly see the example (150) above. 470 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

(163) Example of -te locative: ki-cip-te ke-tŋ-an [yip ‘house’, toŋ- ‘to sit’] 1P.PL-house-L 1S.PL-sit-IA ‘We are in our house.’ (164) Example of -tu allative: Juan-tu a-lyw-an [lya(w)- ‘to go’] Juan-AL 1S.SG-go-IA ‘I am going to Juan’s place.’

There is a genitive marker -low,which can only occur with a possessive personal prefix.

(165) a. ok a-low ko-wa 1.SG.PU 1P.SG-G this-TO ‘This is mine.’ b. ok a-low ŋ-a-lyah-an 1.SG.PU 1P.SG-G 3S.SG-1.SG.AP-take-IA ‘He takes mine (away).’ c. ol i-low-am ko-wa who3P.PL-G-Q this-TO ‘Whose is this?’

There is some evidence that the suffix -tup represents an agent-disambiguator or an ergative case marker. (Unfortunately de la Mata does not contain many example sentences.)

(166) Juan-tup Pedro i-∅-lam-i25 Juan-E Pedro 3S.SG-3O.SG-kill-PF ‘Juan killed Pedro.’

Rivet (1956) draws attention to the numeral classifier system of Chol´on.26 The numerals are prefixed to generally monosyllabic morphemes particular to a semantic class. The

25 Compare Mapuche langm- ‘to kill’ (see chapter 5). 26 Rivet argues on this basis, in our view without enough support, that Chol´on was related to the Chibchan languages. 4.11 Chol´on 471 list of classes and classifiers is as follows:

(167) -ˇce round objects, birds, fruit -cel ∼ -ˇcel , -ta humans, horses, hands -ˇcaŋ bundles, handfuls, bunches -ˇcup clothing, dresses, axes, machetes, fish, books, feathers, scissors, knives, combs, shoes, stockings -hil words, precepts, ordinances, commands -liw diverse objects, colours, parrots -pimok skies, ceilings, rooms, divisions of space, folds -pok times -poŋ troops, companies, armies, herds -puˇc fields -puk mouthfuls -ˇsuŋ towns, places, posts, piles -tip halves, pieces of meat -tuh pieces, chunks, nodes, joints

Adjectives Chol´on only has substantives that can be used adjectivally, such as waliw ‘something strong’27 and alyhi ‘something sweet’.28 They can either precede or follow the head noun, according to de la Mata, but the examples given involve adjective–noun order:

(168) a. iˇsiwah hayu ‘bad man’ b. yamkuyla hayu-he diligent man-B ‘for the diligent man’

Person prefixes All nouns, verbs, pronouns and even some postpositions are used with prefixes. These are given in (169), together with the full pronouns listed above. For most person–number combinations, there is a clear relationship between both. (N- is either n-,ornasalisation of an initial stop):

(169) 1.SG 2.SG 3.SG 1.PL 2.PL 3.PL pronouns ok mi sa ki-ha mi-na-haci-ha ˇ affixes a- mi- N-/∅- ki- mi-..-ha (ˇc)i-

27 Possibly from Spanish vale ‘it is worth’, ‘it is good’. 28 Compare Quechua alyi(n) ‘good’. 472 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

These prefixes fuse with their base, and de la Mata’sgrammar gives extensive paradigms, which at first sight look quite confusing, particularly where third person singular is involved:

(170) a-pul ‘my son’ mul ‘his son’ [pul ‘son’] a-taka ‘my thighbone’ taka ‘his thighbone’ [taka ‘thighbone’] a-coc ‘my guinea pig’ coc ‘his guinea pig’ [yoc ‘guinea pig’] a-nlyo ‘my pupil’ nalyo ‘his pupil’ [nalyo ‘pupil’]

There are several regular processes at work in the process of prefix fusion: (a) before vowels -n- is inserted; (b) a palatal glide is replaced by the affricate c-; (c) stem-initial labial stops may become nasal; with some nouns this only happens to mark third person singular; (d) stem-initial velar stops become nasal to mark third person singular; (e) before an alveolar or palatal sound (c,ˇ c, s,s, ˇ t, ly) the third-person prefix is zero; the same holds before nasals as defined under (a), (c) and (d); (f) the third-person-plural prefix is i- before alveolars and palatals, ciˇ - elsewhere (or u-,cu- ˇ through vowel harmony).

Verbs The verbal paradigm in Chol´on is quite complex. The basic forms for person are the ones listed above in (169). We have the following present-tense paradigm for the verb kot-‘to be’; cf. also (145). Notice that the third-person-singular form of an intransitive verb such as kot- has no personal reference marker.

(171) 1S.SG a-kt-an 1S.PL ke-kt-an 2S.SG.MS me-kt-an 2S.PL me-kt-i-ha-[a]n 2S.SG.FE pe-kt-an 3S.SG kot-an 3S.PL ce-kt-anˇ

Tense and aspect are marked with suffixes. Some are (using the terminology of de la Mata):

(172) -(a)n present / imperfective -Vy / -Vw/-i/-yi preterite / perfective -Vy / -Vw/-i/-yi+ (k)e pluperfect -(k)t-an future

In addition, there are a number of mood markers, marking optative, exhortative, subor- dination (gerund). Some of them contain a nominalising element -k- (see below). 4.11 Chol´on 473

(173) -(k-)hu gerund (with switch-reference) -(ŋ)o-ke / -(k-)te-ke optative -(k-)he exhortative (third-person-subject imperative)

There is also a negative element -p-,which interacts with tense-agreement marking:

(174) a-kot-p-an 1S.SG-be-NE-IA or 1.SG.AP-be-NE-IA ‘I am not.’ or ‘I have not.’

Thus we have a basic ‘formula’ for the verb as in:

(175)  --(-) (-) /

However, when we consider forms such as the following, we realise that the full com- plexities of the Chol´on verbal system still call for further analysis. (Notice the vowel harmony in /pakot-o-ke/ > pokot-o-ke.).

(176) a-kt-i pokot-o-ke [pakot ‘be there’] 1S.SG-be-PF be.there-FN-NP (optative) ‘I could have been.’ (lit. ‘I have been from having to be’)

There are very strong and productive patterns of nominalisation in the language; some involve a nominaliser -k- The locative -te is used here with a directional meaning:

(177) a. liman a-lya-k-te a-meny-an mountains 1S.SG-go-N-L 1S.SG-3O.SG.want-IA ‘I want to go to the mountains.’ b. Dios-a ŋol-e-k-te ki-meny-an God-TO 3O.SG.love-TV-N-L 1S.PL-3O.SG.want-IA ‘We want to love God.’ c. Dios-tup i-k-kol-e-k-te i-meny-an God-E 3S.SG-1O.PL-love-TV-N-L 3S.SG-3O.SG.want-IA ‘God wants to love us.’

When we look at the transitions between subject and object marking, things are again more complicated, however. First of all, there can be a third-person-plural object marker -po- following the person prefixes, so that we would get:

(178)  - . -  -  - / 474 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Examples are:

(179) a-po-koly-an 1S.SG-3O.PL ‘I love them.’ mi-po-koly-an 2S.SG-3O.PL ‘You love them.’ mi-po-koly-i-ha-(a)n 2S.PL-3O.PL ‘You (plur.) love them.’

There is also an applicative marker -pa(ha)- ‘for them’, in forms such as:

(180) i-sak a-paha-puˇc-an 3P.PL-food 1S.SG-3.PL.AP-put-IA ‘I put the food out for them.’

When the plural -la- appears without either -po- or -pa- it means the subject is third- person plural and the person prefixes mark the person of the object. In the following example, as in (179), the verb contains the perfective marker -i,which in these cases is semantically void.

(181) a-koly-i-la-n 3S.PL-1O.SG ‘They love me.’ mi-koly-i-la-n 3S.PL-2O.SG ‘They love you.’

Compound verbs Another feature worthy of note in Chol´on is the fact that nouns or other elements can be combined with an auxiliary-like verb to form a complex predicate. Consider:

(182) a. a-kulyha a-kt-an [kulyha ‘life’; kot- ‘to be’] 1P.SG-life 1S.SG-be-IA ‘I live.’ (lit. ‘I am my life.’) b. mu-kulyha me-kt-an 2P.SG-life 2S.SG-be-IA ‘You live.’ (lit. ‘You are your life.’)

There is a verb ki-,which has the meaning ‘to be’ or ‘to become’:

(183) kama a-ki-an ‘I am ill.’ mise ∅-ki-an ‘He feels cold.’ ciw mi-ki-(e)y-ha-n ‘You (plur.) are needy.’ hayu ∅-ki-y ‘He became a man.’

Similarly, verbs can be made from nouns. (Note that the root vowel of yip- / cip- ‘to make a house’ remains unchanged.) 4.12 Small families and supposed isolates in Bolivia 475

(184) a. a-cip-an [yip ‘house’, -cip ‘someone’s house] 1S.SG-house-IA ‘I make my house.’ b. liw a-lw-e-n [liw ‘painting’, liw-e- ‘to write’] letter 1S.SG-write-IA ‘I write.’

4.11.5 The basic word order of Chol´on Chol´on has many characteristics of a classical OV language, in addition to fairly con- sistent verb-final clauses:

(185) kuˇci-le me-kt-an malyamu-∅-lyup-o-wa pig-or 2S.SG-be-IA raw.thing 2S.SG-3O.SG-eat-FN-TO ‘Or are you a pig that you eat raw stuff?’

Possessors precede their head noun:

(186) Pedro ∅-n-eˇstek sa-ˇco ∅-kot-an29 Peter 3P.SG-RL-clothes old-already 3S.SG-be-IA ‘Peter’s clothes are already old.’

Modifiers precede their head noun as well:

(187) ceˇˇ co-ke kaloˇc silver-NP plate ‘silver plate’

4.12 Small families and supposed language isolates in Bolivia In the Bolivian lowlands surrounding the northern edge of the Andean high plateau there is a wide array of small, genetically isolated languages. From west to east, they are Leco, Moset´en–Chimane, Movima, Cayuvava, Canichana, Itonama and, further south, Yuracar´e. Most of these languages are far from being adequately documented at present. Leco had been considered extinct, but van de Kerke (1998, 1999, 2000, 2002) has found more than forty-five speakers. The language has (direct and indirect) object person prefixes but an extensive verbal suffixing system, as well as case suffixes. An example is:

(188) mi:s yo-yo-ki yin-hal-di-ra-no-te wes-ra tomorrow 1P.SG-mother-RL 1.SG.DA-buy-IC-F-ID.N-DV Guanay-L ‘Tomorrow my mother will go and buy me (a new one) in Guanay.’ (van de Kerke 2002: 246)

29 It could not be determined whether the root for ‘old’ exemplified here is actually sa or saˇco. 476 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

There are a few simple cases: -ki ‘dative, benefactive’, -i ‘comitative, instrumental’, -ra ‘locative, instrumental’, -rep ‘ablative’, as well as bi-syllabic case markers such as the Quechua or Aymara borrowings -kama ‘until’ and -baˇca ‘reason’. Gill (undated) and Sakel (2002, 2003) provide detailed studies of Moset´en–Chimane. It is best to consider this group as a set of three closely related varieties: Santa Ana Moset´en, Covendo Moset´en and Chimane proper. Sakel (2002) documents how gender marking has become grammaticalised as a pervasive feature of a number of grammatical subsystems of Moset´en. Basic data for Movima have been provided by Judy and Judy (1962, 1967) and Grinevald (2002), and the language is currently being studied by Katharina Haude. It has a complex system of classifiers (Grinevald 2002). An example from the verbal domain is:

(189) ona-ra- ‘know (the thing)’ ona-mo- ‘know (a bird)’ ona-wax- ‘know (a place)’ ona-poy- ‘know (an animal)’ (Judy and Judy 1962: 151)

Aspects of the small isolate Cayuvava have been documented by Key (1967). This language is in urgent need of further documentation and analysis. Itonama and the prob- ably extinct Canichana are currently being studied by Mily Crevels. Itonama phonology has been analysed by Liccardi (1968). Yuracar´e has been documented by Adam (1893) on the basis of a much earlier manuscript by the missionary de la Cueva. It is currently being studied by Rik van Gijn. It has complex reduplication patterns, involving either the initial syllable, the final syllable, or the entire word:

(190) a. burusa- ‘to get rent’ burus-bu- ‘to rend’ b. sama- ‘to die’ sama-ma- ‘to kill’ c. bene-bene-‘to be poor, to need’ (Adam 1893: 46–8)

Yuracar´eisanSOV with both prefixes and suffixes. As in Leco, personal nominal possession and object markers are prefixal, while subject markers are suffixal. Applicatives are prefixal, while other verbal derivation markers, includ- ing causative and reflexive, tense/mood/aspect markers, case markers and sentence- organising elements are suffixal. The following example, adapted from de la Cueva’s work, illustrates some of these characteristics:

(191) ka-n-yuxu-ma ka-la-sa-ˇco-w 3O.SG-AP.GO-tell-IM.2.SG 3O.SG-AP.SO-finish-HO-3S.PL ‘Tell them to leave it (to stop doing it).’ (Adam 1893: 11, 37) 4.13 Chiquitano 477

Interesting here is the use of different applicatives to mark motion away from or towards a reference point, as well as beneficiary or purpose. The use of singular third-person object markers is allowed here because plural is encoded in the complement verb (Adam 1893: 37). A genetically isolated language, as far as we know (but see below), with a rapidly decreasing number of speakers for which a modern description is urgently needed, is Chiquitano in the eastern department of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Chiquitano being a former mission language, remnants of other tribes can be found among its speakers. The sources do not indicate whether these groups have preserved elements of their original languages. The remaining language families represented in Bolivia are found in the north of the country: Chapacuran, with one language called Itene or Mor´e (Angenot-de Lima 2001), the Pano–Tacanan languages (section 4.1), members of the Arawakan family (section 4.2) and Tupi–Guaran´ı languages (section 4.3).

4.13 Chiquitano Now we will try to provide a sketch of Chiquitano. The size of the ethnic group of Chiquitanos is estimated by Riester (1986a) at 35,000–40,000, a minority of which are speakers of Chiquitano. In the period of Jesuit control over the area (1691–1767) Chiquitano was chosen as a and imposed in ten reducciones,newly created settlements. Jesuit policy allowed settlements where other languages with a few thousand speakers, such as Zamuco, dominated, as long as these speakers also knew Chiquitano. Speakers of minor languages, however, were encouraged to become integrated into the Chiquitano ethnic group. While there must have been extensive multilingualism in the Chiquitano reducciones in the eighteenth century, Alcide d’Orbigny did not find many traces of the other languages when he visited the missions in 1831. Riester (1986: 31) describes the situation in the early nineteenth century as follows: several Arawakan lan- guages (Paiconeca, Paunaca, Saraveca), Chapacuran languages (Chapacura, Kitemoca, Napeca) and Otuque (a Bororoan language) were still spoken but were losing ground in a process of language shift towards Chiquitano. Now only in two communities near Concepci´on do we find some Chiquitanos who speak Paunaca, and Kitemoca may still be in existence as well. The Jesuits effectively created a semi-standardised language, in which quite a few reli- gious texts were written: sermons, prayers, catechisms, stories from the Scriptures. In ad- dition, there were several grammars and vocabularies. Most of this material has remained in manuscript form (cf. the description in Riester et al. 1986), and much of it has been lost. Two manuscripts (containing a grammar, some dialogues and a vocabulary), one of which is partly based on the other, found in libraries of La Paz, Jena and Paris, were collated and 478 4 Languages of the eastern slopes published by Adam and Henry (1880) in their Biblioth`eque Linguistique Am´ericaine. A recent brief sketch is provided in Riester et al. (1986) by Barbara Schuchard, who summarises the Adam and Henry material and confronts it with modern spoken Chiqui- tano. Max Fuss, who lived in the area for a long time, prepared a manuscript vocabulary, which was checked and expanded by Riester, and published in Riester et al. (1986). The Franciscan Jes´us Galeote Tormo has written an accessible pedagogical grammar, in fairly traditional terms (1993; 2nd edn 1996), of the Lomer´ıo variety, called Besro. In addition, the Summer Institute linguists D. and M. Kr¨usi (1978a, b) have described some aspects of the Besro Chiquitano spoken in Lomer´ıo, and published a number of texts in the language. Even though Chiquitano was still known widely enough to be used as a cypher lan- guage during the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay, now it has lost its role as a lingua franca to Spanish. It is still widely used, but only in in-group situations, and has undergone influence from Spanish. For this reason, according to Riester, most speakers only know dialectal Chiquitano now; knowledge of the lingua franca form of the language codified in the Jesuit materials is mostly lost. Galeote Tormo (1993: 18, 30) reports that there is considerable mutual comprehension between the varieties of Chiquitano, of which the three main ones are referred to as Besro or Lomer´ıo, San Javier and San Miguel (the latter two often taken together). The main difference has to do with more nasalisation in Lomer´ıo. In addition, the latter dialect has word-final .sˇ where the others have h. Since the eighteenth-century sources analysed by Adam and Henry (1880) are much more detailed than the twentieth-century ones, we will take the former as a point of departure, and only note differences where these have been mentioned by Schuchard. There have been many changes in the language in the last two centuries, which remain to be studied. Chiquitano remains an isolate genetically.

4.13.1 Gender-determined language use in Chiquitano Differences related to gender are reported to play a central role in Chiquitano, particularly in the earlier varieties. Women use the unmarked form, while men use masculine forms and masculine endings when they speak ‘of Gods or divine persons or angels, demons, men, false gods; in sum, of everything that painters paint with men’s shapes.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 5). Thus, not only does men’s speech as such have particular features (to be listed below), also men make gender distinctions when referring to other entities while women do not. The only time a woman will make gender distinctions is when she is quoting or making fun of men’s speech; similarly, the only occasion a man will not use them is when he quotes women’s speech. 4.13 Chiquitano 479

Specific features of men’s speech reported in the literature include (Adam and Henry 1880: 5–6, 9–10): a. the ending -ti: on forms inflected for masculine third person singular, and the ending -()ma in the plural; b. the class prefix i- in the singular and ma- in the plural for some person names; men say i-ˇsa:raˇs. ‘white man’ and ma-ˇsa:ra-ka ‘white men’, women sa:raˇˇ .s and sa:ra-kaˇ ; c. the class prefix o- for words denoting animals and trees; men say o-petaˇ.s ‘turtle’, women petaˇ.s; d. pronouns and adverbs limited to men; e. nouns that men never use; f. nouns that women use inflected, men uninflected, and vice versa; g. almost all kinship terms have an infix for the third-person masculine pos- sessive form, e.g.:

(192) a. a-to-bo-ti: abo-ˇs. ‘her stepson’ stepson-MS-LS-3P.MS ‘his stepson’ b. ipak-to-ˇs.-ti: ipak-ˇs. ‘her mother’ mother-MS-P-3P.MS ‘his mother’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 6)

We use the term ‘unmarked’ rather than ‘feminine’, in opposition to ‘masculine’, because it includes everything but the specifically designated group of masculine entities.

4.13.2 Chiquitano phonology Chiquitano has the consonantal phonemes presented in table 4.9. It can also be seen that there are six oral vowels. There is distinctive vowel length, and there can be vowel sequences, which are pronounced separately and not diphthongised. In addition, all vowels can be nasalised. When a noun or a verb base is affixed with an element that contains a nasal or a nasalised vowel, some consonants are nasalised – a case of nasal spread:

(193) b:m r:n y:ny

In speech there are frequent cases of elisions, when one word begins in a vowel and the preceding word ends in one. 480 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Table 4.9 Chiquitano phoneme inventory∗

Labial Dental Palatal Retroflex Velar Glottal

Voiceless stops p t ty k ʔ Voiced stop b Fricatives ssˇ ˇ s. x Affricatec ˇ Nasals m n ny Vibrant r Glide y

Front Central Back

High i  u Mid e o Low a

∗ There is a distinction between short and long vowels. Nasal vowels occur (Adam & Henry 1880), but have also been interpreted as sequences of a vowel and a nasal consonant (Galeote Tormo 1993, 1996). In present-day Chiquitano, stops (not glottal stop) and nasals have palatalised allophones after i.

4.13.3 The principal grammatical features of Chiquitano Most words in Chiquitano appear to be classifiable as either nominal or verbal. Nouns. There are three classes of nouns (Adam and Henry 1880: 8): a. nouns that never appear with person marking; this category includes the names of animals and trees; b. nouns that are optionally marked for person; this category includes many inanimate objects; c. nouns that are obligatorily marked for person: kinship terms, names for body parts, and names for ‘body parts’ of plants and trees such as ‘bark’ and ‘flower’. In relation to the category of animals, in order to indicate possession, a generic term with the meaning of ‘animal’ is introduced that can be marked for person.30

(194) a. y-au tamokoˇs. 1P.SG-animal dog ‘my dog’ b. tamokoˇs. y-au-ˇs.-ti: dog 3P.MS-animal-P-MS ‘his dog’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 8)

30 This feature is also found in Guaran´ı. 4.13 Chiquitano 481

Adjectives. There is no class of adjectives properly speaking in Chiquitano. Two obligatorily inflected pronouns are used adjectivally: nyetama ‘alone’ and nyatonye ‘self’. Another fairly small group of adjectivally used nouns is largely uninflected and refers to stable properties such as size, colour and quality. Numerals. Apart from the word etama ‘one’, there are no numerals properly speaking in Chiquitano. Numbers are indicated with quantifiers and gestural indexing. Personal pronouns. Independently used personal pronouns can appear in subject and in direct-object position. In subject position they are often preceded by the particle aˇ.s-, which Fuss and Riester (1986) gloss as a deictic particle. The forms are:

(195) ny 1.SG som 1.PL exclusive ony 1.PL inclusive h31 2.SG anyo 2.PL ti: 3.SG masculine ma 3.PL masculine inyo 3.PL unmarked

There is no third-singular unmarked pronoun; a demonstrative ty one is used in this case. Notice that there is a first-person-plural inclusive/exclusive distinction. Other cases of pronominal usage are reflected in person marking on nouns, verbs, postpositions, etc., the topic to which we now turn. Person marking.Person is marked through prefixation. Although there appears to be a great deal of allomorphic variation in the prefixes and the traditional grammars in Adam and Henry (1880: 12) distinguish five , the pattern is fairly regular. Thus we have:

(196) i-po:-ˇs.-ma 3P.MS-house-P-MS.PL ‘their (masc.) house’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 13)

Compare now the pronoun forms with the (abstract underlying) person prefix forms. The symbol Y indicates weakening or palatalisation (k:s, t:ˇc, :ˇs)ofthe root-initial consonant.

(197) pron pref pron pref ny iY- 1.SG som soiY- 1.PL exclusive ony o- 1.PL inclusive h a- 2.SG anyoau- 2.PL ti: i- 3.SG masculine ma i- 3.PL masculine - i- 3.SG unmarked inyoyo- 3.PL unmarked

31 Galeote Tormo (1996) has ()k instead of h. 482 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

When we denasalise the pronoun forms, several of them are very similar to the prefix form:

(198) pron pref pron pref *y iY- 1.SG *sob soiY- 1.PL exclusive *oy o- 1.PL inclusive h a- 2.SG *ayo au- 2.PL ti: i- 3.SG masculine *ba i- 3.PL masculine -i-3.SG unmarked *iyo yo- 3.PL unmarked

There appears to be a diachronic relation for 1.SG, 1.PL exclusive, 1.PL inclusive, 2.PL, 3.PL unmarked, even though it is impossible to derive the prefixes from the pronouns synchronically. The pattern under discussion bears much resemblance to the i-, a-, iʔ- pattern for personal pronominal prefixes, which has a much wider distribution in South America. It is described by Greenberg (1987), who takes Chiquitano as an example. Postpositions and case markers. The Chiquitano system of case markers and ad- positions is quite complex. There are a number of elements that can only be used post- positionally. Some of these can be analysed as case markers; others correspond to body parts. In addition, there are elements that can be used either with person prefixes, or in uninflected form. Finally, there are elements that can only be used transitively, in uninflected form. There is very extensive use in Chiquitano of postpositions with pronominal prefixes to mark the other relations that pronominal elements can have to the predicate. They provide further illustration of the allomorphic variation in the person prefix system. The genitive is used for independent possessives glossed ‘mine’, etc. but can also be used periphrastically with nouns. To say ‘my house’, there are two possibilities:

(199) i-po: po:-ˇs. i-sa 1P.SG-house house-P 1P.SG-possession ‘my house’ ‘my house’

Combining the two possibilities is ungrammatical, however:

(200) *i-po:-ˇs. i-sa 1P.SG-house-P 1P.SG-possession (Adam and Henry 1880: 22)

The dative postposition is used for recipients, as well as benefactive and experiencer objects:

(201) a. y-aˇce-ka a-˜emo 1S.SG-give-ND 2P.SG-DA ‘I give you.’ 4.13 Chiquitano 483

b. i-samu-ka po:-ˇs. a-˜emo 1S.SG-build-ND house-P 2P.SG-DA ‘I build a house for you.’ c. amia˜a mo-ti: 3S.SG.seem DA-3.MS ‘It seems to him.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 22)

General accusative does not involve case marking but is simply the base pronoun, as was mentioned already. There is a special case used with verbs of desiring, one used with the verb y-asa-ka ‘to see’, and one used with verbs of waiting. The forms are not entirely regular, however, as can be illustrated with the forms for the first person singular:

(202) ny pronoun iY- prefix iny-˜emo dative iy-o with verbs of desiring is-ari with ‘to see’ (other persons have -kari) is-ubi with verbs of waiting (other persons have -kubi) s-obi agentive (also found with unique expressions such as ane sobi ‘I have’)

There are also some oblique cases (termed ‘ablative’) in Adam and Henry (1880: 24). One of them is given above, the agentive case, which appears in passive sentences such as:

(203) s-obi i-kunomo 1P.SG-by 3S.SG-write (passive) ‘It has been written by me.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 24)

It has an active equivalent, but the two verbs are derived from identical stems in this case:

y (204) i-kunomo-ka aˇs.-n  1S.SG-write-ND PU-1.SG ‘I have written.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 24)

Only with experiencer verbs such as ‘to love’ do we get a dative subject:

(205) i-suba-ka iny-˜emo 3S.SG-love-ND 1P.SG-DA ‘She was loved by me.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 24) 484 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Afew of the other morphemes that can be used as postpositions are (Adam and Henry 1880: 25–8):

(206) a. -aka ‘with’, comitative b. -anene, -a:p ‘about’, ‘above’ c. -au ‘in the absence of’ d. -ˇcepe ‘conjointly with’, ‘like’ e. -ibi ‘source’, ‘from’ f. -kuata (∼-suata) ‘because of’ g. -nynana ‘than (in comparisons)’, oblique object, ablative h. -(o)pnanaki ‘away from’, separation i. -taku (∼-ˇcaku) ‘for the sake of’ j. -ubo ‘with’, instrumental

Some examples are:

(207) a-kosi y-aka-bo-ti: 2S-go.IM 3P.SG-company-LS-MS ‘Go with him!’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 26) (208) i-suˇce-ka y-au-ti: 1.SG-be.sad-ND 3P.SG-absence-MS ‘I am sad in his absence.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25) (209) ny-˜a:ki-ka iyo a-ibi 1S.SG-ask-ND 3.SG 2P.SG-from ‘I ask it of you.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25) (210) i-skiˇsoto-ka i-nynana 1S.SG-abhor-ND 3P.SG-OC ‘I abhor this.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25) (211) a-kosi-bo ny-opnanaki 2S.SG-get.away-F.IM 1P.SG-away.from ‘Get away from me!’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25) (212) a-aiki soi-ˇcaku 2S-pray.IM 1P.PL.EX-sake ‘Pray for us!’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25)

As can be seen in (207, 212), the second-person imperatives are base forms. Case-marked personal pronouns can be used prepositionally with nouns:

(213) y-aˇce-ka nyome pa-ka 1S.SG-give-ND 3.PL.FE.DA woman-PL ‘I give the women.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 27) 4.13 Chiquitano 485

Some prepositions only occur in a fixed form, with the third-person prefix. We list some of the locatives:

(214) i-ku ‘on or over flat objects’ i-kumoeta ‘in the middle of’ i-pnana ‘between’ i-ta ‘on or over non-flat, round objects’ -takuisr ‘on or over high objects’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 27)

Notice, however, that the element they govern can only be an object, and hence the invariance may be accidental, though presumably this could be plural as well as singular in reference. Verbs. The Chiquitano verb consists of a stem with a person prefix, generally identical to the person prefix of nouns and postpositions, and tense and mood suffixes. According to Galeote Tormo (1996: 148–50), the verb can have various forms:

(215) absolute (without an object) pron. prefix a-ACTIVE STEM-ka active transitive pron. prefix i-ACTIVE STEM-ta active with pronominal object pron. prefix i-ACTIVE STEM-ka-pron. suffix passive pron. prefix-PA SSIVE STEM-ka

Passive can be distinguished from the active forms either by stem modification (weak- ening of the initial consonant, the addition of a prefix), or the stems can be identical; absolute and transitive uses of the verb are distinguished by affixes. The suffix -ka does not normally occur with third-person subject forms, where, depending on the verb, it is replaced by one out of a set of other suffixes (-o, -bo, -ko, -na, -no, -ra, -ro, -so, -yo)or some additional modification. The manuscripts edited by Adam and Henry describe the system as involving a different ending for when the action of the verb is determined by some reason or not, and depending on the nature of the object. In addition to absolute (no object), active (a specific nominal object), and reflexive (coreferential pronominal object), they distinguish:

(216) respective 1: masculine pronominal object respective 2: unmarked pronominal object

Combined with the ± determined distinction this gives the following paradigm (for first-person-singular subject present): 486 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

(217) −determined +determined absolute: nya..ka nya.. active: i..ka i..no reflexive: i..ka-ny i..no-ny respective 1 i..ka-ti: i..no-ti: respective 2 i..to i.. (Adam and Henry 1880: 37)

Notice the discrepancy between the different sources: the i..tacombination in (215) does not figure in this list. For the reflexive and respective 1 usages a pronoun is simply added in final position. However, this pronoun may undergo a complex series of allomorphic changes depending on the shape of the verbal stem. The fundamental three-way distinction mentioned can be illustrated by the following forms of tomo˜e- ‘to tie’:

(218) nya-tomo˜e-ka absolute i-tomo˜e-ka active i-ˇcomo˜e-ka passive

Some verbs are inherently transitive: koko- ‘obey’, nyoko- ‘leave’, yabu- ‘open’, nyen- ‘hold’, nyama- ‘close’ (Galeote Tormo 1996: 149). Likewise, the number of verbs that can be passivised is limited, including chop- ‘wound’, tomo˜e- ‘tie’. Some verbs, like ‘go’, ‘come’ and ‘be’ have irregular or at least untransparent paradigms. Past tense is marked adverbially or with a prefix t- (which precedes person prefixes). Some verbs allow an affix -ki for future tense, but in most cases this is marked adver- bially (Galeote Torno 1996: 176). The particle -ka is used in indicative contexts, for different tenses. It can be preceded by the future particle -ra-/-na- (or another one), and remote future can be expressed by an adverbial element, so that we have forms such as:

(219) tari i-tomo˜e-na-ka-ti: RU 1S.SG-tie-F-ND-3O.MS ‘I’ll tie him up later.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 40)

Other time references can be formed in a similar way with pre- or postposed adver- bial elements. There is a future or subjunctive prefix that occurs before the person marker:

(220) m-iˇs-ane˜e [-aka ‘eat’] SJ-1S.SG-eat ‘so that I eat it’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 41) 4.13 Chiquitano 487

There are no affixes for nominalised or infinitive forms. Gerunds are formed with a preposition and an article:

(221) au-n-i-tomo˜e-u in-DF-1S.SG-tie-3O.SG ‘when tying it up’ (lit. ‘in my tying it’) (Adam and Henry 1880: 42)

Predicative expressions are formed by adding pronouns as enclitics to the predicate. Predicates can be nouns, adjectives and interrogative pronouns:

y (222) a. riaboˇs.-n  captain-1S.SG ‘I am a captain.’ b. riaboˇs.-h captain-2S.SG ‘You are a captain.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 45)

These essentially stative predicates can be made resultative through the addition of -ka-:

y (223) riaboˇs.-ka-n  captain-ND-1S.SG ‘I have become a captain.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 45)

Possession can be expressed by prefixing a noun with a person marker and adding -ka at the end:

(224) i-po:-ka 1P.SG-house-ND ‘I have a house.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 46)

Negation is expressed through the addition of -i at the end of the verb, hence:

(225) i-tomo˜e-to-i 1S.SG-tie-3O.SG-NE ‘I didn’t tie it up.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 45)

Verbal derivation and composition. There are very complex processes of verbal deriva- tion and composition in Chiquitano. An example is the causative:

(226) nyotubori-ka ‘to have food’ nyotumoni-ma-ka-ka ‘to cause someone to have food’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 46)

The consonantal changes are due to nasal spreading, as explained above. 488 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

The range of (generally post-stem) derivational affixes is quite wide. The following list illustrates just a few:

(227) sura-ka ‘to speak’ sura-pa-ka ‘to speak to another’ sura-taki-ka ‘to speak frequently’ sura-sr-ka ‘to speak before others’ sura-sipi-ka ‘to talk dirty’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 50)

4.13.4 Chiquitano word order Clearly, Chiquitano is an (S)VO language:

(228) i-tomo˜e-ka n-burikaˇs. [cf. non-standard Spanish burrica] 1S.SG-tie-ND DF-mule ‘I tie the mule.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 52)

We also saw that prepositions precede nominal complements:

(229) ipnana n-oseoˇs. between DF-corn ‘between the corn’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 27)

The position of the subject is less clear, given the paucity of examples with nominal subjects. Chiquitano has adopted the Spanish coordinating conjunctions y ‘and’ and o ‘or’. These, as well as native Chiquitano adverbial subordinating conjunctions, precede the clause they modify.

4.14 The languages of the Chaco region: Guaicuruan, Matacoan, Zamucoan and Lengua–Mascoy In the Chaco region, which covers part of southeastern Bolivia, western Paraguay and the northern Argentinian border region, three small language families are spoken: Guaicu- ruan, Matacoan and Zamucoan. In addition, there are speakers of Lengua–Mascoy and of Tupi–Guaran´ı languages (cf. section 4.3). For Lule–Vilela, now practically extinct, see chapter 3 (sections 3.1 and 3.8). Furthermore, Guaicuruan, Matacoan and Lule– Vilela connections have been proposed for the extinct Charr´uan languages, once spoken in Uruguay (cf. section 1.7.3). Censabella (1999) gives a survey of the sociolinguistic situation in the Argentinian part of the Chaco. The Guaicuruan family includes Pilag´a, Toba, Mocov´ı and the extinct Abip´on in Argentina and Paraguay, while Kadiweu is spoken in the state of do Sul, Brazil. There were Toba speakers in Bolivia in the nineteenth century, but from 1916 4.14 The languages of the Chaco region 489

Table 4.10 Phoneme inventory of Toba (based on Messineo 2000)∗

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal

Voiceless stops p tckq ˇ ʔ Voiced stops d g  Voiceless fricatives ssh ˇ Voiced fricativez ˇ Nasals m n ny Laterals l ly Glides w y

Front Central Back

High i Mid e o Low a

∗ In Klein (1978), vowel length is distinctive. The voiced stop d has a frequent tap allophone [r], and Klein’s inventory posits a phoneme /r/, instead of /d/. In some dialects h is absent in word-initial position. onwards they were pushed out of Bolivia, and now a handful at most are left there, although there are many more in Argentina and Paraguay. Pilag´aisspoken in the province of Formosa, Argentina, and Mocov´ıinthe southern part of the province of Chaco and northern part of Santa Fe province, Argentina. While Toba language and culture have been extensively studied (Censabella 1996; Klein 1973, 1978, 1981; Messineo 2000), Pilag´a has been analysed by Vidal (2001). Grammars of Mocov´ıhave been written by Gualdieri (1998) and Grondona (1998). The now extinct language Abip´on has been documented by Najlis (1966). The phoneme system of Toba has been analysed by Messineo (2000) as in table 4.10. Syllables tend to be fairly simple. Examples of the most complex syllables include dayk ‘big’ (CVCC) and pyoq ‘dog’ (CCVC). The resonants l and n can be syllabic in word-initial position. Some prefixes and suffixes contain an unspecified vowel which harmonises with the vowel of the word base. There is frequent palatalisation, of both vowels and consonants, triggered by the presence of the vowel i. Stress falls on the last syllable of the word. The most striking grammatical feature of Toba is the so-called Active valency-marking system, illustrated by the following contrast (Messineo 2000: 75–6):

(230) a. s-apaGagen na qom l-ʔaqtaq 1S.SG-teach DC Toba 3P-language ‘I teach the Toba language.’ 490 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

b. maˇse s-aˇsek already 1S.SG-go ‘I am going already.’ (231) a. ayem z-asamnˇ yi 1.SG 1.UG.SG-be.tired ‘I am tired.’ b. Romualdo ∅-ˇz-awa-Gan Romualdo 3S.SG-1.UG.SG-beat-T ‘Romualdo beat me.’

There are two person paradigms for the first and second persons, A used for transitive subjects (230a) and subjects of intransitive dynamic verbs (230b), and B used for subjects of stative verbs (231a) and direct objects (231b). In addition, there is a nominal possessor paradigm C (Messineo 2000: 133), and a medial paradigm D.

(232) A. Subject B. Undergoer C. Possessor D. Medial 1.SG s(V)-z(V)- ˇ i- ny(V)- 2.SG ʔaw- ʔad- ʔad- ʔan- 1.PL s(V)- qad- qad- ny(V)- 2.PL qaw-...-i qad-...-i qad-...-i qan-...-i

The nominal possessor forms in C are largely identical to the undergoers in B. Whether a verb enters into paradigm A or B is not only a question of transitivity or the degree of control of the subject, but also of the dynamicity of the predicate. The verbs entering into class B are limited to about twenty. The class includes true statives and descriptives (which may be expressed as adjectives in other languages). Klein (1981) has provided an interesting analysis of the verbs used with prefixes from paradigm D. She argues that the basic meaning of the /n/-class prefixes of paradigm D is adcorporeal movement, i.e. towards the torso. Metaphorically, this is extended to reflexive, reciprocal and medial uses. Consider the following contrastive pair (Klein 1981: 230):

(233) a. nyi-kor-ek 1S.SG.MD-pour-outward ‘I pour out (perfume, syrup – inward motion).’ b. se-kor-ek 1S.SG-pour-outward ‘I pour out (liquid, e.g. from a pail – motion away from the body).’ 4.14 The languages of the Chaco region 491

For the third person, the situation is more complicated (Messineo 2000: 80–6):

(234) i–/y- transitive subjects, subjects of some intransitive verbs d(V)- subjects of typically intransitive verbs ∅- inanimate subjects and subjects of locative verbs n- subjects of medial verbs (reflexive, ‘hither’) l- possessors

In addition, there is an optional third-person object suffix -a.Inthe plural, all third persons are marked with the suffix -d- (or -ʔ in word-final position). Several authors, including Klein (1981) and Messineo (2000), have discussed the locative and directional markers of Toba. These are striking because of the range of semantic distinctions expressed and their morphological features. They are separated from the verbal root by the aspectual morphemes, suggesting a status of inflectional element; at the same time, however, they often interact with the meaning of the root, suggesting a status as derivational element. There are three pairs of strictly directional markers (Messineo 2000: 114):

(235) a. -(w)ek ‘outward’ -wo ‘inward’ b. -sigemˇ ‘upward’ -nyi ‘downward’ c. -(a)Gasom ‘toward water’ -waq ‘toward fire’

An example would be:

(236) naˇce nyi nsoGoy ʔam ya-maG-awaqze ˇ norek then DC Nsooy 2.SG 3S.SG-push-DR DC fire ‘Then Nsooy pushes you toward the fire.’ (Messineo 2000: 121)

Notice that both the prefix i- ‘3S.SG’ and the directional suffix -waq are separated from the base by a copied or harmonising epenthetic vowel a. (All the directional ele- ments, except -(w)ek, receive a connective vowel when they are added to a stem ending in a consonant.) The directional suffix -waq bears no resemblance to the lexical root norek ‘fire’. 492 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

The locational suffixes are not structured in pairs (Messineo 2000: 122–31):

(237) -lek ‘above’ -gi ‘inside’ -ʔot ‘stuck away underneath’ -(a)sop ‘underneath’, ‘near’ -ʔaoga ‘on the outside’32 -a ‘precisely there’ -ta ‘on the side of, at the border of’ -iʔ ‘there’ (deictic) -ge ‘orientational’ -get ‘in confrontation or contact with’

In the noun, in addition to possessor, dual, paucal and plural number can be expressed (Messineo 2000: 136–9):

(238) a. ya-pia-te 1P.SG-leg-D ‘my two legs’ (dual) (Messineo 2000: 137) b. ʔalo-l woman-PC ‘(a few) women’ (paucal) (Messineo 2000: 137) c. waqahnyi-pi star-PL ‘stars’ (plural) (Messineo 2000: 138)

There is both alienable and inalienable possession in the language. The latter involves body parts, kin terms, parasites, diseases, images of the body (like shadow), intrinsic human properties (like names) and some objects made by humans. There is a system of nominal classifiers, intersecting with masculine and feminine gender marking, indicating various semantic categories. In addition, there is a system of six deictic roots, which combine with various other gender and number affixes (Messineo 2000: 157):

(239) na ‘close’ so ‘distant’ ka ‘absent’ da ‘vertical extension’ ziˇ ‘horizontal extension’ nyi ‘not extended, three-dimensional’

32 Also recorded as -ʔoga (Klein 1978, 1981). 4.14 The languages of the Chaco region 493

Table 4.11 Phoneme inventory of Bolivian (Noctenes) Mataco (based on Claesson 1994)∗

Labial Dental Palatal Velar Labiovelar Uvular Glottal

Stops p t ky kw q ʔ Affricate c Fricative s x xw h Lateral l Nasal m n Glides w y

Front Back

High i u Mid e o Low a ɑ

∗ Vocalic length and stress are phonemic. Vowel nasality occurs but is not contrastive. The sound [k] is an allophone of either kw or q. Stops and affricates combine with the glottal stop ʔ and with the glottal fricative h to form glottalised and aspirated conso- nants, respectively. In the same way, resonants can be preglottalised or postglot- talised, when they appear in a cluster with ʔ;when followed by h they become voiceless.

Word order in Toba is relatively free. In transitive clauses, SVO predominates, and in intransitive clauses VS. Possessors tend to follow possessed elements. There is no clearly defined class of adpositions, but the few elements glossed as such precede their complements. The informative grammar of Mocov´ıbyGualdieri (1998) illustrates many of these aspects of this very interesting language family. Matacoan or Mataguayan includes Mataco, Chulup´ı–Ashlushlay, Chorote and Mak´a. The languages of the Matacoan family are mostly spoken in Paraguay and Argentina. There may be some speakers of Chulup´ı–Ashlushlay and Chorote left in Bolivia, but most are in Paraguay and Argentina. Mataco, Wichi or Weenhayek is the only language with a sizeable number of speakers in Bolivia, along the southwest bank of the Pilcomayo river in the department of Tarija. There is no sign of language loss among the Mataco, although the majority of the Mataco also know Spanish. The Bolivian variety is also referred to as Noctenes (Claesson 1994). An overview of earlier materials and a thematically organised vocabulary list is presented in Lehmann-Nitsche (1926). Tovar (1981) presents texts and a grammar of Mataco. The phoneme system of Mataco is presented in table 4.11. The language is reported to have a four-person pronominal prefix system (Claesson 1994: 7–10). (The fourth person represents first person inclusive.) The set of nominal 494 4 Languages of the eastern slopes possessive prefixes is presented below:

(240) ʔo:- 1P (but ʔo- before #l or t’)33 ʔa- 2P (but ʔ- replacing #l or t’) la- 3P (but ∅- before #l or t’) (ʔi)#la:- 4P (also ʔi- before #l)

Mataco has an elaborate tense system, with a distinction between witnessed and non- witnessed past. The latter is generally distinguished with ʔ- preceding the tense marker of the non-witnessed past (Claesson 1994: 9):

(241) neʔ / ʔneʔ (non)witnessed immediate past mheʔ / ʔmheʔ (non)witnessed habitual action in recent past m´at(hiʔ)/ʔm´at(hiʔ) (non)witnessed past of today and the past night n´ax(iʔ)/ʔn´ax(iʔ) (non)witnessed past of yesterday and back some weeks mh´ax(iʔ)/ʔmh´ax(iʔ) (non)witnessed habitual action from yesterday back to remote past (h)teh / pʔanteh (non)witnessed remote past for single action Only in the last case are the forms substantially different. At least some tense markers can also be attached to nouns.

(242) ha-ʔwe:t-teh34 2P-place-RM ‘your home long ago’ (Claesson 1994: 8)

There are several case markers:

(243) a. ʔi la-ʔw´e:t-eh 3S.be 3P-place-L ‘(S)he is at home.’ (Claesson 1994: 4) b. ʔi-wo ʔahu:cax-aʔ 3S-do caracara-AC ‘(S)he dances the caracara (a traditional dance).’ (Claesson 1994: 4)

Chulup´ı–Ashlushlay or Nivacl´eisspoken in Paraguay (departments of Boquer´on and Presidente Hayes) and Argentina (Salta Province). A detailed dictionary of this language with sentence examples is available (Seelwische 1980). Chorote is also spoken

33 The voiceless lateral and the glottalised alveolar stop are analysed as sequences lh, tʔ in Claesson (1994). Stress is not indicated on word-final syllables. 34 Notice that the possessive prefix ʔa- is ha- before a preglottalised consonant. 4.14 The languages of the Chaco region 495

Table 4.12 Reconstructed consonant system of Proto-Matacoan (based on Viegas Barros 2002)

Labial(ised) Dental Alveolar Palatal(ised) Velar Uvular

Plain stops ∗p ∗t ∗c ∗ky ∗k ∗q Glottalised stops ∗p’ ∗t’ ∗c’ ∗ky’ ∗k’ Fricatives ∗xw ∗s ∗x ∗x. Lateral fricative ∗#l Lateral ∗l Nasals ∗m ∗n Glides ∗w ∗y

in Paraguay (department of Boquer´on) and Argentina (Salta Province). Mak´a, finally, is only spoken in Paraguay (department of Presidente Hayes), and has been the subject of excellent studies by Gerzenstein (1994, 1999). This small but vital language is probably the best-described Chaco language. It is shown to have ergative-like patterning in the verb morphology and word order (SVO in transitive, VS in intransitive clauses). However, a detailed reanalysis of the data may well show that typologically it is more Active, like the Guaicuruan languages. It has a set of mostly locative postpositions. Inalienable nominal possession is marked by prefixes (V is a harmonising vowel; it occurs before consonants).

(244) yi-, y(V)- 1P (V-) 2P #l(V)- 3P in- 4P (1st person inclusive) (Gerzenstein 1994: 147)

Alienably possessed nouns that refer neither to a body part, nor to a kinship relation, re- ceive, in addition to the person prefix, an element -q(V)-, for instance, in ye-qe-nenek ‘my spoon’ (Gerzenstein 1994: 149). Some nouns referring to humans or human attributes are marked with a suffix -(k)iʔ or -(l)eʔ when feminine, for instance, in puk’al-eʔ ‘(female) blind’, maka-kiʔ ‘Mak´awoman’ (Gerzenstein 1994: 152). Najlis (1984) is a reconstruction of Proto-Matacoan phonology, excluding Mak´a. The data in Gerzenstein (1978, 1979, 1983) show that the two varieties of Chorote have phonemes very much like these of Mak´a. However, the phonological analysis of Claesson (1994) gives a rather different picture. He analyses the series of glottalised and aspirated stops and of pre-aspirated sonorants reconstructed by Najlis as consonantal sequences. In addition, he assumes only six vowels, where Najlis reconstructs eight. Viegas Barros (2002) reanalyses all the data available and arrives at a new reconstruction of the Proto- Matacoan consonant inventory, presented in table 4.12. 496 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Table 4.13 Phoneme inventory of Ayoreo (based on Briggs 1973)∗

Labial Dental Palatal Velar Glottal

Voiceless stops p tck ˇ ʔ Voiced stops b d g Fricatives s h Vibrant r Nasals m n ny ŋ Voiceless nasals hm hn hny Glides w y

Oral Nasal Front Centre Back Front Centre Back

High i u ˜ı˜u Mid e oe˜ ˜ o Low aa ˜

∗ Vowel length and stress are contrastive.

Zamucoan includes Zamuco or Ayoreo and the language Chamacoco, spoken in Paraguay. The majority of the Ayoreo or Ayor´eode (ayor´e means ‘person’) live in Bo- livia in the department of Santa Cruz, still preserving their nomadic way of life to some extent. There are also Ayoreo in Paraguay. The language with the same name is seriously endangered. Fischermann (1988: 111) notes that there is surprisingly little dialect varia- tion, even if the Ayoreo live rather dispersed. In some southern varieties, intervocalic r is not pronounced. Thus Ayoreo is pronounced as [ayoweo], and the word parakar˜a ‘rattle’ as [pa:ka:]. The manuscript Zamuco grammar by Ignace Chom´e (written between 1738 and 1745) has been published by Lussagnet (1958). In addition, Lussagnet (1961–2) has made available vocabulary items from older sources in different . Zolezzi and Riester (1985) present a number of Ayoreo texts. Although little systematic study has been carried out, Ayoreo may be assumed to have the phoneme system given in table 4.13, combining information from different sources. Clearly more work is needed here urgently. There is general agreement that there is a five-vowel system, with an oral and a nasal series. The words given in the texts by Briggs suggest vowel harmony: words generally (though not quite always) contain vowels from only one of the series. There can be several vowels in a row, but consonant clusters are not possible. From Briggs (1973: 156), some insight into the structural properties of Ayoreo can be gained. There is a masculine/feminine distinction in nouns, as well as a singular/plural distinction. Adjectives agree in gender and number with the nouns they modify. There is some derivational nominal morphology, and nouns can be marked for possession. In 4.14 The languages of the Chaco region 497 the verbal system there are derivational affixes, person prefixes, and tense and aspect particles. A preliminary analysis of the following narrative fragment presented by Briggs (1973: 157) gives an indication of some of the features of the language:

(245) ∅-uh´e:ʔ t´ıgree ˜ŋahe˜˜ a:ˇcer˜˜´ akeʔ yu ih´ıʔ t´a y-ibatig´ai. 1S.SG-kill jaguar and EC jump 1.SG.PU L there 1P.SG-honey. hunting.trip ‘I was trying to kill a jaguar, and he jumped me while I was on the honey-hunting trip.

i-ˇcag´u ŋar˜˜ an˜ım˜´ uˇc-˜ıhn˜ı:m˜´ eʔ y-˜asor´et˜eŋa˜ ∅-˜ahn˜aʔ 1S.SG-lance come.DS but 3S.SG-take.out 1P.SG-lance and 1S.SG-follow I lanced him as he came, but he took away my lance and I followed him

e˜ŋa˜ hek i:si-hiʔ to:n˜´˜ ınyeke˜ ʔ. and EC 1S.SG.find-DR long.ways.away. and found him a long way away.

∅-ah´oy-˜asor´e tah´aʔ m˜u, bag´e t-ua:t´ıd´a:y ka:si:k´aiteʔ 1S.SG-put.down.upon 1P.SG-lance AL but Bagu´e FE.DC father late Iwent to kill him with my lance but Bagu´e’s late father

c´ˇı:seʔ yu ih´ıʔ e˜ŋaˇ˜ c-uh´e:ʔ ih´ıʔ y-˜ıhma:˜´˜ ın˜ıeʔ. 3S.SG-find 1.SG.PU L and 3S.SG-kill L 1P.SG-hand came right in and killed him under my nose.

or´e:ʔ c-˜ˇ ıhnoke´˜ ʔ ah´aʔ deg´ui. 3.PL 3S-carry.on.shoulders AL camp They carried him back to camp.’

The first-person-singular prefix i-/y-/- can be used both as a possessive and as a subject marker with verbs (and may well be related to the pronoun yu ‘first person singular’). It is not clear that this holds for all persons. The language has relational elements (prepositions or postpositions), like ih´ıʔ ‘locative’ and ah´aʔ ‘directional’. Verbs precede the direct object (SVO), and in the text given, the possessor precedes the possessed. Lengua–Mascoy has been described as an isolate with several dialects, or as a small language family, Mascoyan (Campbell 1997). Very little systematic linguistic research has been carried out on this language. A phonological analysis remains to be done, but it is clear that there is extensive vowel harmony. Suˇsnik (1977) is a very interesting ethnolinguistically oriented description of Lengua– Mascoy vocabulary, grammar and culture. The Lengua–Mascoy verb is marked with a 498 4 Languages of the eastern slopes rich array of verbal classifiers, marking such notions as direction and location. Pronomi- nal object marking only involves the first person. Subject marking exists for first person, second/third person (differentiated for masculine and feminine gender) and first person plural (Suˇsnik 1977: 97–100). It is not clear whether there is an inclusive/exclusive distinction. In the unmarked case, the person prefixes are:

(246) k- 1S.SG ap- 2/3S.SG.MS n- 2/3S.SG.FE nn- 1S.PL kyel- 2/3S.PL (Suˇsnik 1977: 98)

The independent pronouns are only in part related to these forms:

(247) koʔo35 1.SG λ-y-p36 2/3.SG.MS λ-y 2/3.SG.FE nŋŋkoʔo 1.PL kyell-ŋŋky-p 2/3.PL.MS kyell-ŋŋky 2/3.PL.FE

Person marking interacts strongly with indicative, future and negation marking on the verb (Suˇsnik 1977: 99–101). On the noun, person marking is obligatory with body parts and kin terms (Suˇsnik 1977: 113–14). Gender distinctions pay an important role in the language. Nominal possessors precede the possessed element:

(248) kla:na ak-tal-nama of.the.woman 3P.SG.F-dress ‘the woman’s dress’ (Suˇsnik 1977: 117)

Nominalised verbs also typically receive person marking, and play an important role in the formation of complex clauses. Two interesting collections of translated religious texts in Lengua are Nimpasmo nimpaiwa nelmathnangkama and Nimpaiwa ningmi- naigm`asch`ama (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 1907, 1911). There have been many population movements in the Chaco during the twentieth century, both as the result of the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay and of subsequent socio-economic developments. Stahl (1982: 16) gives a systematic overview

35 Pronunciation suggested in Lowes (1954); Suˇsnik writes k´o´o. 36 We tentatively represent Suˇsnik’s tl as a voiceless lateral affricate (λ-); the symbolsc ¸ and cl¸ are interpreted as realisations of a voiceless lateral fricative phoneme (l ); Lowes (1954) writes th and explains it as a dental fricative. 4.15 Quechua influences 499 of the distribution of the languages of the Paraguayan Chaco as spoken around 1900. In the northwest Chiriguano–Guaran´ıwas spoken, in the northeast the Zamucoan languages Chamacoco and Ayoreo, and in the centre west Tapiet´e. In the southwest Chulup´ı and Mak´awere spoken, and in the southeast the Mascoyan languages. In the far south Toba was spoken, just north of Asunci´on. There has been much discussion about the possible relatedness of the languages of the Chaco (see section 1.7). Now that many detailed dictionaries and grammatical descriptions have become available, this question can be taken up again. In any case, it is clear that the languages share a number of grammatical and phonological features, as far as can be ascertained. There is nasalisation and vowel harmony, and consonant clusters generally are simple. There often is an Active or ergative system with SVO/VS word order. Person is marked by prefixes, both on the noun and on the verb. In the noun there often is an alienable/inalienable possession distinction. Once the Zamucoan languages and Lengua–Mascoy have been better analysed, a full-scale comparative survey can be undertaken.

4.15 Quechua influences on eastern slopes languages There are a number of instances of Quechua influence in the Amazon region. Some scholars seem to feel that the highlands cultures and languages have had relatively little influence in the lowlands. ‘The extraordinarily limited influence of the Highland on the Monta˜na is intelligible mainly in terms of unlike environmental conditioning of the cultures’, Steward (1948: 508) writes. This may be so for cultural patterns in general, but linguistically the influence of the highlands, in the case of Quechua, is far from trivial. In addition, later research has pointed to extensive interchanges between monta˜na and sierra (Raymond 1988). Tessmann (1930: 623) claims that Chol´on is the only case where a has developed from Quechua and the monta˜na languages.37 This is not true, in our opinion. It simply shares a number of features with Quechua, as well as with eastern slope languages, and shares a limited set of particular derivational morphemes with Quechua. Other languages such as Yanesha and Shuar have also adopted some Quechua suffixes, particularly case markers and clausal markers. However, it is difficult to be certain about the status of Quechua-like suffixes in Chol´on and Shuar because these languages belong to small language families of which a possible distant genetic relation to Quechua needs to be studied more. Moreover, there has been no systematic study of the sharing of grammatical or lexical items between the languages treated in this chapter, and thus the phenomenon may be much more widespread.

37 ‘der einzige Fall, dass sich eine Mischsprache zwischen Ketschua und Waldlandsprachen gebildet hat’. 500 4 Languages of the eastern slopes

Quechua influence takes several forms. First, a number of varieties of Quechua are spoken as native languages in the lowlands. Second, Quechua has functioned and still functions as a lingua franca in a wide area. Third, many languages have adopted Quechua vocabulary, for material items, in the numeral system and for certain animals. Examples include Shuar sayaˇ and Muniche saʔa, from Quechua sara ‘maize’, and Shuar kaˇci ‘salt’. Quechua numerals are found in Conibo, Shipibo, Muniche, Tacana, Urarina,Yameo and Yanesha. A particularly striking case of cultural diffusion is analysed by Nordenski¨old (1922). The chicken was unknown in pre-Columbian South America, and it was probably in- troduced into Brazil in 1500. Nordenski¨old claims that the species was traded up the Amazon and throughout Brazil, among others by the Arawak, before it reached the Incas from the Gran Chaco, through the Guaran´ı, who named it uru γ wasu, big ‘uru’, where the ‘uru’ was a small native fowl. Nordenski¨old claims the Incas took over the bird and named it ata-walypa,where ata is said to be derived from hatun ‘big’ and served as an augmentative, similar to γ wasu. There are numerous speculations as to why the last Inca received this name, but this is unresolved. The Quechua word atawalypa for ‘chicken’ then spread from the P´aez in Colombia to the Mapuche in central Chile, and into the jungle as far as the Huitoto. Nordenski¨old argues that this must have happened before the destruction of the Inca empire. Later a Spanish word would have been chosen. Much later Quechua influence is unlikely because soon the term for ‘chicken’ became simply walypa (in Amazon Quechua walipa), everywhere but in parts of Ecuador. This chapter ends with a list of words for ‘chicken’ in a number of pre-Andean Amazonian languages (the words have been taken from various sources).

Quechua-based terms: Huariapano ihtori Achuar at´aˇs Huitoto ataba´ , at´aba Aguaruna at´aˇs, at´aˇsu I˜napari tawari Amahuaca hatap´a Lamista Quechua w´alypa Amarakaeri wa-tawah Napo Quechua atal´ıpa, at´alya Apolista atalpa Nocam´an at´apa Campa atawal´ıpa Nomatsiguenga ti´ape Campa Ash´aninca atawa, tawalpa,Panobo ixtori (ta)waripa, tawarina Piro xatyawripa Canelo Quechua at´alya Quijos Quechua at´alipa, at´alypa Capanahua atapa Setebo it´odi Cashibo ataba´ , atapa´ , attapa-awi, at´´ oripa Shipibo/Conibo atapa´ , atapa Chamikuro ataw´ali Shuar at´aˇs(i) Chasutino Quechua w´adypa Ticuna ota´ Chayahuita at(o)ad´ı, at(o)ar´ı, ataˇs Urarina atawar´ı, atawari Chol´on at´elywa, atelyw´a Yagua to´ari, tawalyi, tawariy, tuwariy Cocama ataw´ali, atawari Yanesha atolyop, at´olup Hibito udzˇpa Yuracar´e talipa Huambisa ataˇs, siamˇ Z´aparo at´awali 4.15 Quechua influences 501

Other: Andoa karar´a, kakar´a Muniche kaka,caˇ ˇ canyʔ Arabela kakaray´a Muinane kat´awua, adaba Bora kharak´ ha Omurana m´ata Candoshi kt´aˇso, kat´aˇsu Secoya/Pioje k´uda, kur´a Chiquitano kuras.sˇ, (o)kurubas.sˇ Sensi oˇcici Coto/Orej´on kur´a Tekiraka: Abishira a˜a, tawaruy´a Iquito kakarra, kakar´a Tekiraka: Vacacocha aya´u Jebero waʔγ ant´ k Yameo sekən, seik´en 5

The Araucanian Sphere

The term ‘Araucanian Sphere’ has been chosen to cover the central part of what is today the Republic of Chile, extending from the river valley to the island archipelago of Chilo´e. At the arrival of the European invaders this area was predomi- nantly inhabited by a single ethnolinguistic group: the Araucanians. This powerful nation became partly incorporated within the colonial society, but also included an important sector which succeeded in preserving its independence until 1882. In this chapter we furthermore give attention to the central-western part of Argentina, comprising the hilly region known as the Sierra de C´ordoba and the Andean foothills region known as Cuyo (including parts of the provinces of Mendoza, San Juan and San Luis). Like the Araucanians, the original inhabitants of central-western Argentina were agriculturalists. They became involved in the process of colonisation right from the beginning, and lost their identity and their languages at an early stage (Mart´ınez Sarasola 1992: 58–63). Of the various native languages that were once spoken in central- western Argentina only the Huarpean languages, Allentiac and Millcayac,have been documented. They constitute a family of closely related languages. Allentiac was spoken in the southern part of San Juan and in northern San Luis, whereas Millcayac extended southward from the culturally important wetlands of Guanacache to the R´ıo Diamante, covering most of Mendoza. The native languages of the province of C´ordoba were the languages of the Comechingones (in the sierras of western C´ordoba) and the Sanavirones (in the northern sierra of C´ordoba and its eastern lowlands, including the banks of the lake called Mar Chiquita). These languages are virtually undocumented. Although Loukotka (1968) includes the Comeching´on language (with its presumed dialects Henia and Camiare) within the Huarpean family, the evidence consists of no more than a couple of words. In 1594 Barzana (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 79) reported that more than eight or nine different languages were spoken in the Sierra de C´ordoba, which indicates that the Comeching´on language probably did not constitute a unity. The Sanavir´on language is classified as a linguistic isolate in Loukotka (1968), but the amount of evidence is so small that a possible genetic relationship could not be detected, even when it existed. 5 The Araucanian Sphere 503

PERU

BOLIVIA BRAZIL

PARAGUAY

G U CHILE A R

A

N

Í

TA ABIPÓN I N U Ó KAINGANG G G ÓN A N R I I VI D H NA C A E S

M Córdoba

O ALLE C CHANÁ URUGUAY NTIA C CHARRÚA Santiago MILLCAYAC Buenos Aires N A E I H QUERANDÍ N C A N ARGENTINA E C U U H A E

R P

A GÜNÜNA YAJICH Valdivia

Chiloé TEUSHEN

C

H O

N

O

K TEHUELCHE

A

W

E

S

Q

A

R

Map 11 The Araucanian Sphere: approximate distribution of languages at the time of the Spanish conquest (sixteenth century) 504 5 The Araucanian Sphere

PERU

BOLIVIA BRAZIL

PARAGUAY

E

L ARGENTINA

I Córdoba

RANQUELCHE URUGUAY

H (19th CENTURY) Santiago Buenos Aires

MAPUCHE C E Concepción H B C iob ío U R . P GÜNÜNA A YAJICH(†) M Temuco

M

Osorno A P

U

HUILLICHE C

H

Chiloé E

TEHUELCHE

Map 12 The Araucanian Sphere: twentieth-century distribution of indigenous languages 5 The Araucanian Sphere 505

An overview of the Araucanian Sphere would not be conceivable without paying some attention to the Argentinian pampas and Patagonia (including the provinces of Buenos Aires, La Pampa, R´ıo Negro and Chubut), which for centuries constituted an outlet for the expansion of the freedom-loving Araucanians. Among the native groups of these sparsely peopled southern extensions were the nomadic ,who inhabited the eastern Andean slopes and foothills south of the Huarpeans, in the province of Neuqu´en. These Pehuenche owed their name to their dependency on the collection of pine-nuts of the Araucaria tree (pewen in Mapuche). Most early sources agree in affirming that the Pehuenche had a language and an identity of their own, distinct from those both of the Araucanians and the Huarpeans. Unfortunately, nothing is known of the original Pehuenche language. The present-day group called Pehuenche is located in Chile, on the upper reaches of the Biob´ıo river (between Santa B´arbara and ) and in other pre-cordilleran areas further south, between the lakes Icalma and . They speak a Mapuche dialect and are not necessarily related to the historical Argentinian Pehuenche. The Querand´ı of Buenos Aires were the first to become exposed to the European colonisation of the R´ıo de La Plata in the seventeenth century. They soon lost their ethnolinguistic identity. Only two sentences and a few words of their language were recorded by French sailors around 1555. On the basis of these few data Viegas Barros (1992) shows that Querand´ımay have been closely related to the language of the G¨un¨una K¨une or Puelche.Ifthis conclusion is correct, it would identify the Querand´ıas the northernmost representative of the Chon language family. The Tehuelche complex, which includes G¨un¨una K¨une and various other representatives of the Chon family, will be discussed in chapter 6. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries all these peoples came into contact with the expanding Araucanians, who either subjugated them by force, or assimilated them through alliance. As a result, a number of Araucanian- speaking mixed groups came into existence, some of which are still aware of their non-Araucanian origins. This, for instance, is the case with the Araucanised Tehuelche, wholiveinElChal´ıa in southwestern Chubut. The Tehuelche origin of this group is confirmed by the use of Tehuelche vocabulary items and phonological features, such as the use of a uvular stop and glottalisation, common in Tehuelche but otherwise unknown in Araucanian (Fern´andez Garay 1997a). For some interesting examples of Chubut Mapuche usage see also D´ıaz-Fern´andez (1992). Some of the mixed groups, such as the Ranqueles,1 for a time became powerful nations until they were annihilated by the Argentinian army in 1879–81. In spite of its geographical location, which could be considered peripheral within a South American context, the Araucanian Sphere belongs to the oldest inhabited areas

1 The Ranqueles (or raŋkl-ˇce ‘people of the reeds’) originally had their territory in southern C´ordoba. In 1900 they were relocated in Colonia Emilio Mitre, in northwestern La Pampa (Fern´andez Garay 1998a). 506 5 The Araucanian Sphere of the American continent. Excavations conducted at Monte Verde near Puerto Montt in the far south of continental Chile have seriously challenged the convictions of ar- chaeologists that the human occupation of South America must have been posterior to the Clovis horizon (9500–9000 BC), when Paleo-Indian big-game hunters roamed on the North American plains (Fiedel 1992). The existence of a 12,000-year-old pre- agricultural village in this remote area of South America suggests an earlier arrival of the first inhabitants than was held possible so far (Dillehay 1989–97). Although the Araucanian Sphere region was neither an area of cultural prestige, nor of great artistic production, it was certainly not unimportant from a political and a demographic point of view. In spite of fierce resistance of the Araucanians, the Inca rulers succeeded in conquering the northern part of it, including central Chile and the Cuyo region, but their control must have remained limited to the existence of military outposts and probably some mitimaes (see chapter 3). The limit of the Inca military advance, to either the (altitude of Talca) or to the Biob´ıo (altitude of Concepci´on), is still a matter of debate. The Incas called the Araucanians Auca (from Quechua awqa ‘enemy’, ‘rebel’), a name which the Araucanians proudly adopted as a self-designation.2 Soon after their first attempts at colonisation, the Spanish conquerors became ac- quainted with the stubborn and fierce resistance of the Araucanians. The dramatic events of the mid sixteenth century, when the Spanish conquistador Pedro de Valdivia tried to establish a colony in central Chile at the cost of many Spanish and Indian lives, are vividly narrated in Alonso de Ercilla’s epic poem La Araucana (1569–89). After these turbulent beginnings, a status quo arose in which central Chile and the far south (in- cluding the town of Valdivia and the island of Chilo´e) were under Spanish control, whereas most of the intervening area (including the present-day provinces of Arauco, Biob´ıo, Malleco and Caut´ın) remained independent and outside the domain of Christian influence. The Araucanians strengthened their position thanks to an unusually effective military organisation, great strategic experience and dexterity in the use of horses. In the seventeenth century the Araucanians supported the Dutch in their short-lived attempt of 1642–3 to establish a colony in Valdivia under the leadership of Hendrik Brouwer. As soon as it became clear that the newcomers could not live up to the Indians’ expectations and started to behave like a colonial power themselves, the Araucanians withdrew their support. The dominant group among the unsubdued Araucanians were the Mapuche (‘people of the land’). Consequently, the denomination Mapuche became almost a synonym of Araucanian. The latter name was probably derived from that of the town of Arauco, situated at the northern border of the independent Mapuche territory. This territory was

2 A more specific denomination used in the colonial period is that of (from Quechua purum awqa ‘uncivilised enemy’). 5 The Araucanian Sphere 507 known as La Araucan´ıa during the colonial period and in the nineteenth century. Outside its borders the Araucanians were either completely assimilated (in the north), or gradually dwindled in numbers also by assimilation (in the south). After the independence of Chile (in 1818) the Mapuche in the independent territory retained their autonomy, although it came gradually under the pressure of a consolidating Chilean state. In 1860 Antoine Or´elie de Tounens, a notary-clerk from the P´erigord in , came to the Araucan´ıa and had himself crowned King of Araucania (and later also Patagonia) under the name of Or´elie-Antoine I. Although many Mapuche recognised and supported him, the Chilean and Argentinian authorities succeeded in evicting him twice in succession. Some of Or´elie-Antoine’s relatives still claim rights to the Araucanian throne today. The final blow to the Araucanian independence in Chile came in the 1880s when the Chilean military occupied the area in a campaign known as pacificaci´on de la Araucan´ıa (pacification of Araucania). The Mapuche were confined in reserved areas (reducciones), separated by pieces of land that were handed out to Chilean peasants and newly arrived immigrants from Europe. This policy,aimed at destroying the unity and organisational traditions of the Mapuche, created many antagonisms between Indians and non-Indians. So far, it has proved effective. The Mapuche became a marginal and much discriminated population, plagued by poverty and internal strife. During the Pinochet dictatorship of 1973–89 the Mapuche suffered heavy oppression and adverse legislation aimed at the dismantlement of the reducciones system. It is estimated that more than a hundred thousand Mapuche have migrated to Santiago and other towns outside their native territory.3 Meanwhile, the provinces of Malleco and Caut´ın (in the ex-Araucan´ıa) have remained predominantly Mapuche. The Araucanians who entered Patagonia and the Argentinian pampas did so partly in order to establish colonies, and partly for raiding expeditions. These raiding expeditions, known by the name of mal´on,were conducted with great efficiency and violence. They had a terrifying effect on the white settlers in these sparsely inhabited regions. Alliances between Indian groups sometimes also involved adventurers of European extraction, who tried to escape the control of the young Argentinian state. Some of these groups for some time acted as separate political entities, a situation which is described by the Argentinian colonel Mansilla in the account of his visit to the Ranqueles in 1870 (Mansilla 1947). Throughout most of the nineteenth century southern Argentina remained dominated by Indians, Buenos Aires being situated close to the frontier. The anti-Indian animosity among the authorities and citizens of Buenos Aires grew such that the Indians were finally subdued in several military campaigns, especially those of 1833 and 1879–81. The latter campaign led by

3 Most of the statistical information in this chapter has been obtained from the website Estado actual de las lenguas abor´ıgenes de Chile (http://rehue.csociales.uchile.cl) of Gilberto S´anchez. It contains information from the 1988 census. 508 5 The Araucanian Sphere

General Roca, during the government of Sarmiento, is known as conquista del desierto (‘’) and was geared towards the total destruction of the Indian communities in the pampas and in northern Patagonia. The survivors of this campaign were rounded up in reservations. Considering that most of the other languages belonging to the domain of this chapter are extinct and very poorly documented, our attention will mainly go to the Araucanian language and its local varieties. At the end of the chapter some general features of a Huarpean language (Allentiac) will be given.

5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche At the arrival of the Spanish conquerors, Araucanian was the dominant, if not the only language spoken in central Chile, the non-insular part of southern Chile and the island of Chilo´e. Luis de Valdivia,4 the author of the first description of Araucanian (1606), speaks of the ‘language which is used in the entire Kingdom of Chile’ (la lengua que corre en todo el Reyno de Chile). In a later stage of the colonial period the name Chilidugu (ciliˇ θuŋu ‘language of Chile’) came into use (cf. Havestadt 1777). The modern name of the Araucanian language is Mapudungun, to be analysed as mapu-θuŋu-n ‘language of the (people of the) land’, by analogy with Mapuche (mapu-ˇce ‘people of the land’), as the Araucanians nowadays prefer to call themselves. Nevertheless, the language too is often referred to as Mapuche. Early colonial observers (Bibar 1558) point at the linguistic homogeneity of central and southern Chile when the area was first visited by Spanish military expeditions. There is a marked contrast with the situation of linguistic diversity and multilingualism emerging from seventeenth-century descriptive accounts of almost any other area in the Americas. Spanish religious authorities used the Araucanian language in order to subdue and evangelise non-Araucanian peoples, such as the Chono of the islands south of Chilo´e, to the Christian faith. Although it appears that dialect differences did not stand in the way of mutual under- standability, Valdivia gives a more subtle picture of the situation of the language. His work is of particular interest due to his exposure to a variety of Araucanian that has long been extinct, the dialect of the bishopric of Santiago. This variety was also known as Mapocho or Mapuchu5 after the name of the river that runs through the Chilean capital today. Valdivia explicitly mentions several distinctive elements of the Santiago dialect, which are not found in the varieties spoken today. When he mentions such characteristics, he often contrasts them with linguistic habits that were prevalent among the Araucanians

4 The Jesuit grammarian Luis de Valdivia is not to be confused with the conquistador Pedro de Valdivia, who died under Araucanian torture in 1552. 5 The river name Mapocho seems to have no relation with ‘Mapuche’, the present-day name of the Araucanian people. 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 509 further south (‘arriba’), to which he often referred as the Beliche (from wilyi-ˇce ‘people of the south’). Some of the characteristics that Valdivia considered typical for ‘arriba’ or Beliche speech apply nowadays to the language of the Mapuche heartland in Malleco and Caut´ın, in southern Chile. An example is the absence of the pluralising morpheme y`uca [yka], which, according to Valdivia, was used in the bishopric of Santiago as a postposed element with non-animate nouns (e.g. ruca y`uca [ɹuka yka] ‘houses’), in con- tradistinction to the prefix-like element pu which marked plurality with animate nouns, as in pu che [puce] ˇ ‘people’. ‘The Beliches apply pu to every sort of thing’, says Valdivia (1606: 10). The modern Mapuche language uses pu for human beings and only excep- tionally for objects (Augusta 1903: 16), which is roughly in accordance with Valdivia’s observation about the Beliche practice. In addition to such explicit mentions, Valdivia’s description contains several lexical items and grammatical elements that are not found in present-day varieties of the language. Examples are the verb cu- [ku] ‘to go’ (modern Mapuche amu-) and the verbal derivational suffix -clo-[klo] ‘to help’, which has no equivalent in present-day Mapuche. In part, they may have been specific features of the Santiago dialect, but we could also be dealing with expressions that became obsolete during the last four centuries. During the colonial period all of central Chile north of the Biob´ıo river became thoroughly Hispanicised. The Mapocho dialect and maybe some other varieties became extinct. The Araucanian dialects that survived are those of the former Araucan´ıa and those of the territories further south, including Chilo´e. The varieties that spread into Argentina were brought there mainly by refugees or migrants from the former Araucan´ıa, which is confirmed by the close linguistic similarity between the Chilean and Argentinian Mapuche. The one considerably divergent variety of Araucanian still spoken today is the dialect of the present-day Huilliche, who live in the southernmost provinces of Valdivia, Osorno and Chilo´e, in the Chilean region of Los Lagos. Its local name in San Juan de la Costa (Osorno), cesuŋun ‘speech of the people’, reflects some of its phonetic characteristics (Alvarez-Santullano Busch 1992).6 Further characteristics of the Huilliche dialect are discussed in Salas (1992a: 86–92). In the past several attempts were made at subdividing the Chilean Araucanians into ethnolinguistic subgroups. Best known is the classification of Lenz (1895–7) who, in addition to the Huilliche, distinguished the (pikum-ˇce ‘people of the north’) in the northern part of the former Araucan´ıa (province of Malleco), or Ngoluche (ŋulu-ˇce ‘the Chilean Mapuche as they are called by their (eastern) Argentinian kinsmen’, probably related to ŋuly-ant ‘evening’) in the southern part of Araucan´ıa (province of Caut´ın), and the Pehuenche (‘people of the Araucaria pine’), who live near the cordillera. Croese (1980, 1985) distinguishes eight dialect areas in Chile, two of which correspond

6 The equivalent expression in Mapuche would be ce-ˇ θ uŋu-n. 510 5 The Araucanian Sphere to Lenz’s Picunche and one of which corresponds to Huilliche. There appears to be a consensus that, with the exception of Huilliche, all the Chilean dialects are mutually intelligible. The Picunche dialect stands out by the fact that its interdental and labiodental fricatives are voiced ([ð], [v]), whereas they are voiceless ([θ], [f]) in the Mapuche dialects further south (Salas 1992a: 92). In this respect, the Picunche dialect coincides with the extinct northern variety described by Valdivia. Valdivia’s transcription (, ∼ ) suggests that the fricatives in that variety were also voiced. The Argentinian dialects are only slightly different from their Chilean relatives, with the exception of occasional substratum influence from Tehuelche or other local lan- guages. They may share specific features with one of the Chilean dialects, thus betraying the homeland from which they once migrated. For instance, the Ranquelino dialect of La Pampa province shares the use of voiced fricatives with Picunche, which may be its closest relative in Chile (cf. Fern´andez Garay 1991). Approximately 400,000 Mapuche people live in the Chilean region of Araucan´ıa (provinces of Caut´ın and Malleco), where they are the majority of the rural population. There seem to be no reliable figures concerning the number of speakers of the language, but it may be assumed that a substantial part of the Mapuche population in this area continue to speak it. Some smaller groups of Mapuche are located in Arauco and Biob´ıo (region of El Biob´ıo) and in Valdivia (region of Los Lagos). The inhabit a discontinuous area in the region of Los Lagos, including the coast of Osorno (San Juan de la Costa), the interior of Valdivia (Isla Huapi in Lake Ranco) and several locations near Quell´on at the southern tip of Chilo´e (e.g. the community of Huequetrumao). Referring to Isla Huapi and San Juan de la Costa, Contreras and Alvarez-Santullano (1989) insist that only people over sixty can speak the language to a satisfactory degree. Given the critical situation of the , it is unlikely that there remain more than afew thousand speakers. Estimates concerning the number of Mapuche in Argentina fluctuate between 27,000 and 60,000 (Mart´ınez Sarasola 1992: 493). The largest group of Argentinian Mapuche live in Neuqu´en, but there are also communities in the provinces of Buenos Aires, Chubut, La Pampa and R´ıo Negro. Very little can be said about the actual number of speakers of Mapuche in Argentina, as in many locations the language is being replaced by Spanish (Fern´andez Garay 1996).

5.1.1 Mapuche studies The Mapuche language has been studied more intensely than many other South American Indian languages. A good overview of what has been done is Salas (1992b). The Mapuche grammatical tradition begins with Valdivia (1606), whose work was followed in the second half of the eighteenth century by the grammars of Febr´es (1764) and Havestadt (1777), the latter one in Latin. At the end of the nineteenth century Rodolfo Lenz (1895–7) published an extensive series of studies, known as Estudios Araucanos (Araucanian Studies), including many 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 511 texts in different dialects, accompanied by ethnographic and linguistic observations. Lenz also became known for his claim that Chilean Spanish, as pronounced by the lower class, is essentially Spanish with Araucanian sounds (Lenz 1893: 208; 1940: 249). The arguments upon which he based this assertion were successfully refuted by Alonso (1953). Nevertheless, the idea of an Araucanian substratum in Chilean Spanish may encounter a more favourable ear today. Approximately in the same period, Bavarian missionaries renewed the Mapuche de- scriptive tradition. Their most outstanding figure was F´elix Jos´edeAugusta, known for his grammar (Augusta 1903) and dictionary of the language (Augusta 1916), by far the best dictionary of the Mapuche language to date. Augusta also published a collection of traditional text and ethnographic notes, Lecturas Araucanas (Araucanian Readings), collected by himself and Sigifredo de Fraunhæusl (Augusta 1910). To the same grammat- ical tradition belongs a grammar by Ernesto de Moesbach (1963). Doubtless, his most valuable contribution is the edition of the autobiography and memoirs of Pascual Co˜na, a Mapuche chief, who lived through the turbulent years of the last great Argentinian raids and the pacification of the Araucan´ıa (Moesbach 1930). Both in content and in form it is a monument of native American literature. Among the more substantial contemporary contributions to the study of Chilean Mapuche, the work of Salas (1979, 1992a, 1992b) occupies a central position. Salas (1992a) also contains an extensive treatment of the different genres in Mapuche folk lit- erature, including some annotated and translated texts. Smeets’sunpublished dissertation of 1989 contains the most detailed grammatical description of the Mapuche language so far, accompanied by analysed and translated texts.7 Catrileo (1987) is a classroom textbook for learning Mapuche. A recent grammatical description of Mapuche is Z´u˜niga (2000). Most of the publications concerning the Chilean Mapuche language are in the form of articles in journals. We will mention just a few examples. Important articles on Mapuche phonology are Su´arez (1959), Echeverr´ıa Weasson (1964), Echeverr´ıa and Contreras (1965), Lagos Altamirano (1981) and Rivano (1990). The complex system of personal reference marking in Mapuche is discussed, inter alia,inFontanella de Weinberg (1967), Salas (1978, 1979), Grimes (1985), Rivano (1988, 1989) and Arnold (1996). Several aspects of Mapuche grammar are discussed by Harmelink (1987, 1988, 1990, 1992). The historical-comparative position of Araucanian is discussed in Key (1978), Stark (1970) and Croese (1991). In relation to the Argentinian varieties of Mapuche we can mention the publications of Fern´andez Garay on the dialect (Fern´andez Garay 1989b, 1991, 1998b, 2001), as well as Golbert’stext edition Epu pe˜niwen (Two Brothers) (Golbert de Goodbar 1975).

7 A published version of Smeets (1989) is in preparation. 512 5 The Araucanian Sphere

5.1.2 The sounds of Mapuche The phonological structure of a Mapuche word is relatively straightforward. It is remi- niscent of Quechua in that consonant sequences are limited to the intervocalic position and consist of no more than two consonants.8 However, in contradistinction to Quechua and Aymara, vowel sequences are common, as in (1):

(1) leli-a-e-n-ew watch-F-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV ‘He will watch me.’

The Mapuche vowel inventory consists of six vowels a, e, i, o, u, . Their pronunciation and analysis do not present any particular difficulties, except for . There are no length distinctions. The vowel  has a variable realisation, which can either be a schwa [ə], or an unrounded high central vowel [¨ı] according to the environment in which it occurs. In many cases the presence of the vowel  has not been perceived at all in the past. In fact, the recognition of  as a unit phoneme is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the publications of the Bavarian missionaries the different alleged realisations of  were distinguished in writing, either as ,oras<ə>, e.g. w¨un· ‘daybreak’, wən· ‘mouth’ (Augusta 1916), whereas in reality these two words do not differ in pronunciation [wn]. Furthermore, Valdivia (1606) and Augusta (1903) often write consonant sequences, where contem- porary descriptions would assume the presence of an intervening .

(2) Valdivia (1606: 10) modern tva tfa ‘this’ (3) Augusta (1903/1990: 29) modern konn kon- n ‘I entered.’

The non-recognition of the intervening vowel is not just an omission. Valdivia (1606: 9) explicitly states that Araucanian had word-final clusters.9 It is the overall word structure of the Mapuche language that has incited contemporary linguists to assume the presence of a vowel not recognised so far. The morphophonological behaviour of 

8 Occasionally, triconsonantal clusters involving the semi-vowel w occur, as in aŋkaθfwin ‘I had him on the back of my horse’ (cf. Smeets 1989: 55). The element -fwi-isacontraction of -fu- ‘past tense’ and -fi- ‘third-person object marker’. 9 Valdivia (1606: 9): ...ysesiguen despues dellas dos consonantes assi de las que en Espa˜na solemos juntar, como de las que no solemos, y vna de las consonantes que suelen juntar es la –[ŋ] [authors’addition] – que pusimos en el notable seg˜udo. Y no se deue pensar que entonces ay nueua sylaba de mas de la vocal, porque no es mas de vna (‘...and after these (vowels) two consonants may follow, like those we are accustomed to put together in Spain, as well as those we would not put together. And one of the consonants they are accustomed to put together is [ŋ], which we have treated in our second remark. And one must not think that there is a new syllable then in addition to (the one of) the vowel, because there is no more than one’). 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 513 may have played a role in the way its status was perceived by different authors. As in the case of the ‘impure’ vowels of Mochica (section 3.4), it can be used as a full root vowel (as in wn ‘mouth’), but also as a means to avoid non-licensed consonant sequences. Example (3), kon-n,isacase in point. The first-person-singular subject ending is -n; after bases ending in a consonant -- is inserted in order to avoid sequences such as *-nn. An additional complication is the fact that the vowel  is often accompanied by a voiced velar glide or semi-vowel [γ ]. Although there is some individual variation, the presence of the glide is on the whole predictable, so that it need not be analysed as a separate consonant phoneme. However, the rules governing the behaviour of [γ ] are so specific and complicated that it turns out easier to include it with a separate symbol in the orthography (Smeets 1989: 32–4). In some environments, i.e. between a full vowel and a consonant, the semi-vowel is the only possible realisation, e.g. in reγle ‘seven’. Elsewhere, γ is added either before or after the vowel , according to the position in the word.

(4) γy ‘name’ kuwγ ‘hand’

Valdivia (1606) is quite consistent in writing (or any of its graphic variants , ) both for the vowel, and for the semi-vowel (re´ule, uj´ , cu´u). Augusta (1916) uses the symbol for some postvocalic realisations of [γ ]: word-internally (e.g. in reqle [ɹeγle]); word-finally in (near) monosyllables (e.g. liq ∼ l¨uq [liγ ] ∼ [lγ ]‘white’, kuq [kuwγ ] ‘hand’); and word-finally after vowels other than  (e.g. umaq [umaγ ] ‘sleep’). Elsewhere, including in word-initial position, he does not write the semi-vowel (e.g. u´¨ı [γ y] ‘name’, ant¨u [ant(γ )] ‘day’). The relation that holds between the semi-vowels y and w and the vowels i and u, respec- tively, is somehow comparable to that between γ and the vowel .However, the position of y and w as consonant phonemes is much firmer due to their typically consonantal behaviour. In Mapuche of Caut´ın the verbal indicative (or third-person subject) ending -y is obligatorily preceded by a connective vowel  after a base ending in a consonant. (Optionally, this sequence may be replaced by -iy; cf. Smeets 1989: 42, 227.)

(5) lef-y run-3.ID ‘He/she ran.’ (6) lef-y-mi run-ID-2.SG ‘You ran.’ 514 5 The Araucanian Sphere

It should be observed that in many other varieties of Mapuche, the sequence *y (∼iy)isrealised as i (e.g. kon-i ‘he entered’, kim-i ‘he knows’), a state of affairs which suggests that the consonantal status of y in those varieties may be less pronounced (see, for instance, D´ıaz-Fern´andez 1992; Augusta 1903, 1916). On the other hand, Augusta does register the word weny (written wen·ui¨ ) for ‘friend’. The status of w can best be illustrated with verbs containing the reflexive suffix -(u)w-; they are clearly different in pronunciation from their counterparts without that suffix.

(7) elu-w-a-n elu-a-n give-RF-F-1.SG.ID give-F-1.SG.ID ‘I shall give to myself.’ ‘I shall give (to someone).’ (Smeets 1989: 31) (8) elu-w-ke-n elu-ke-n give-RF-CU-1.SG.ID give-CU-1.SG.ID ‘I usually give to myself.’ ‘I usually give (to someone).’10 (Smeets 1989: 31)

The Mapuche consonant inventory is characterised by a rather extensive array of articulatory positions. Valdivia (1606) already observed the existence of a phonemic opposition between interdental [l,n] and alveolar [l, n] resonants. He used the symbols ˆ <´l> and , respectively, to represent the interdental sounds. However, Valdivia did not recognise the interdental stop [t ], which is also recorded in Mapuche, reserving his ˆ symbol <¯t> for the retroflex stop (see below). At present, the different local varieties of Mapuche, both on the Chilean and on the Argentinian side, have either preserved or lost the distinction between interdental and alveolar consonants. For instance, in Argentina the Ranquelino dialect of northwest- ern La Pampa lacks the distinction (Fern´andez Garay 1991), whereas the dialect of Rucachoroy in Neuqu´en (Golbert de Goodbar 1975) preserves it. In Chile, the Huil- liche (cesuŋun)variety of San Juan de la Costa (Osorno) no longer preserves the distinction in the nasal and the stop series, but has developed a distinctive retroflex l in addition to a plain l and a ‘postdental’ (interdental) l (Alvarez-Santullano Busch . ˆ 1992).11

10 A parallel case with y is leli-e-n ‘you watched me’ versus leli-ye-n ‘I watched many things’ (Smeets 1989: 30). 11 Alvarez-Santullano Busch provides no examples of the ‘postdental’ l. The examples given by ˆ her and by Salas (1992a: 87) suggest a historical correlation between the interdental l of central ˆ Mapuche and the retroflex .l of Huilliche. The matter needs further investigation. 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 515

The continued existence of the interdental–alveolar distinction in the Chilean Mapuche heartland has been the object of conflicting observations. Salas (1992b: 502–3) insists that the distinction is fully in use. He refers to the work of Lenz (1895–7), Echeverr´ıa Weasson (1964) and Lagos Altamirano (1981), who confirm this, and states that three different groups of native language planners and educators have considered it necessary to include the distinction in the orthography.12 On the other hand, Croese (1980: 14), in his Mapuche dialect survey, affirms that the distinction is practically lost, and that he found no awareness among the natives of its possible relevance. This is con- firmed by Smeets (1989: 34–6). She gave the matter special attention but was forced to conclude that her consultants, all fluent speakers of the language, did not make the dis- tinction.13 As it appears now, the preservation of the interdental–alveolar distinction in Mapuche must be related to the individual or family level, rather than to geographically based dialects. An additional problem concerning the interdental–alveolar distinction in Mapuche is the inconsistency of the observations. Lexical items, such as lafken ‘sea’, namun ‘foot’ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ and mta ‘horn’, are usually among those recorded with interdental consonants, but in ˆ other cases there is no such consistency. For instance, Salas (1992a) writes tufa¨ ‘this’, ˆ antu¨ ‘day’ and k¨ulen ‘tail’, where Augusta (1916) has təfa, ant¨u and kəlen, respectively. ˆ ˆ ˆ Given the frequency of occurrence of at least the two first items, this is a remarkable discrepancy.14 In addition to the alveolar and interdental nasals, all Mapuche dialects distinguish at least three more nasals: bilabial m, palatal ny and velar ŋ.15 The interesting feature of the Mapuche nasals is not their number, which more or less follows the selection of obstruent articulations, but rather the fact that, within the limitations of Mapuche word structure, they can occur in almost any position and combination. Nasal clusters are frequent even within morphemes. The low level of nasal assimilation (none at all at morpheme boundaries) is remarkable. The following examples illustrate some of the

12 These groups are the committee responsible for the development of the Alfabeto mapuche unificado (Unified Mapuche Alphabet), the members of an alphabetisation workshop organised by the Catholic University of Temuco, and the native authors participating in the workshops of the Summer Institute of Linguistics. 13 The late Luis Quinchavil Su´arez from , the principal Mapuche consultant of the Leiden project underlying Smeets’s dissertation of 1989, was aware of the interdental–alveolar distinction among elder Mapuche speakers but did not make the distinction himself. 14 When Mapuche speakers abandon the alveolar–interdental distinction, it does not mean that the interdental articulation as such is lost. The overall make-up of the Mapuche sound system favours interdental, rather than alveolar pronunciation. This may explain why present-day observers tend to record more interdentals than those historically attested. 15 The usual transcription of the ny and theŋ is n˜ and ng, respectively. For the latter sound, Valdivia used the symbol . 516 5 The Araucanian Sphere positions that nasals can take.16

(9) lamŋen ‘sister’, ‘brother of a woman’ (10) manyke ‘condor’ (11) man-kuw-l-n right-hand-T-IF ‘to give one’s right hand to someone’ (12) aku-nyma-n weˇsa θŋŋu arrive-DM-1.SG.ID bad word ‘I got some bad news.’ (Augusta 1966: xiii) (13) wely-wn- ŋe-n imperfect-mouth-CV-IF ‘to have an imperfect beak (of a parrot)’ (Augusta 1966: 265)

The fricative series of seventeenth-century Araucanian was remarkable not so much for what it included, but more so for what it lacked. Valdivia (1606) is very explicit in his statement that the language had no [s], no [ˇs], no [h ∼ x] and no [f], in the way Spaniards would pronounce them. Instead, there was a voiced interdental fricative [ð], a voiced bilabial or labiodental fricative, written or [v ∼ β], and a voiced retroflex fricative or glide reminiscent of the English ‘r’in‘to worry’, which was written [ɹ]. This, at least, is the picture that can be reconstructed by referring to the situation in the different varieties of the language today. In the modern dialects the voiced pronunciation of the labial and interdental fricatives has been preserved in Ranquelino and in the northern (Picunche) half of the Arauca- nian heartland (especially in Arauco, Biob´ıo and Malleco). In the southern half of the Araucanian heartland and in the Huilliche area the voiceless fricatives [θ] and [f] are preferred over voiced [ð], [v], [β].17 Fern´andez Garay (1991) notes that the Argentinian varieties of Neuqu´en and R´ıo Negro show variation with a preference for the voiceless options. Most contemporary varieties of Mapuche have introduced a voiceless alveodental sibilant s,avoiceless alveopalatal sibilant sˇ,orboth. These sounds are found in borrowed words and, at least in the Temuco area, in forms that are somehow sound-symbolically

16 With the exception of material taken from Valdivia, all examples borrowed from the literature will henceforth be transposed into the current notation system of this book. Given the controversy on the interdentals, these will be indicated even when the original source does not distinguish them from the alveolars. 17 In the word muðay ‘chicha (an alcoholic drink)’ voiced [ð]isfound, even with speakers who normally use the voiceless realisation ([θ]). 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 517

Table 5.1 Mapuche consonant inventory

Labial Interdental Alveolar Retroflex Palatal Velar

Obstruents p t tˇc. ckˇ ˆ Fricatives f θ (s) r [ɹ](ˇs) Laterals l lly ˆ Nasals m n nny ŋ ˆ Glides w y (γ )

related to words containing r or θ, e.g. kure ‘wife’, kuˇse, kuse ‘old woman’, kuθe ‘old woman (despective)’; cf. Smeets (1989: 38). In several old loan words the Spanish plural marker -s has been replaced by Mapuche -r (e.g. awar ‘beans’ from Spanish habas), a fact which illustrates the difficulty that seventeenth century Araucanian speakers must have experienced when trying to pronounce the Spanish s. The velar voiceless fricative is still absent from the present-day Mapuche varieties. Its Spanish representative has been replaced by a stop k in some loan words (e.g. keka-w- ‘to complain’ from Spanish quejarse; Smeets 1989: 69). In Huilliche, the modern reflex of the r sound is a retroflex sibilant, as in kuˇ.sam ‘egg’, Mapuche kuram.Aglottal or velar voiceless fricative [h ∼ x] is optionally found as a variant of f,asinkohke ‘bread’, Mapuche kofke; and xoˇs. u ‘bone’, Mapuche foro (Salas 1992a: 87–8). The stops and affricates of Mapuche have the characteristic in common that they can only occur syllable-initially. The labial and velar stops p and k appear in non-productive morphophonologically related verb-pairs such as af- ‘to end’ (intransitive), ap-m- ‘to end’ (transitive), and naγ- ‘to descend’ (intransitive), nak-m- ‘to take down’ (transitive), which indicate an extinct process of fricativisation in root-final position. There are two affricates, palatal cˇ and retroflex c.ˇ (traditionally written ch and tr, respectively). The retroflex varies between an affricate and a stop. Valdivia’s representation of this sound by means of the symbol <¯t> indicates that the stop realisation may have been the only one possible in the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect. In summary, the original Mapuche consonant inventory is represented in table 5.1. Borrowed sounds and sounds of debatable phonemic status are given between brackets. The obsolescent character of the interdentals is not taken into account. The classification of the resonant r as a fricative is motivated by its interrelations with the other fricatives.

5.1.3 Grammar The overall structure of the Mapuche language resembles that of the central Andean languages Aymara and Quechua as far as the complexity and the transparency of the morphology, as well as the dependency on suffixes, are concerned. Nevertheless, there 518 5 The Araucanian Sphere are some notable differences. Whereas the verbal morphology is exceptionally rich, including, for example, a productive system of noun incorporation, nominal morphology is weakly developed. Although noun incorporation is a frequent phenomenon in the New World, it is relatively rare in the Andean area. Araucanian noun incorporation drew the attention of Valdivia (1606), who recorded some very illustrative examples of object incorporation in the seventeenth-century language, permitting us to observe the difference between an incorporated and a non-incorporated construction. (The examples are given here in the original spelling and their phonetic interpretation between square brackets.)

(14) qui˜ne huinca mo are-tu-bi-n tani ˜ huayqui [kinyewiŋka mo are-tu-βi-n ta nyiwayki] one foreigner OC lend-LS-3O-1.SG.ID FO 1P.SG lance ‘I lent my lance to a Spaniard.’ (Valdivia 1606: 40) (15) are-huayqui-bi-n ta qui˜ne huinca [are-wayki-βi-n ta kinyewiŋka] lend-lance-3O-1.SG.ID FO one foreigner ‘I lent my lance to a Spaniard.’ (Valdivia 1606: 40)

Although the two sentences are translated in the same way, Valdivia points out the syntactic consequences of using either construction. In (14) the noun phrase referring to the recipient contains the postposition mo (also mu or mew in modern Mapuche), which indicates an oblique case. The third-person object marker -ßi- corefers to ‘my lance’, which is the direct object. In (15) the noun referring to the lance is incorporated in the verb form. The object marker -ßi- corefers to the next object available, which is the recipient in this case. Valdivia describes the incorporated variant as ‘an elegant way of speaking’ (elegante modo de hablar).18 In the present-day language noun incorporation is still fully in use (cf. Harmelink 1992). In addition to object incorporation, theme subjects can be incorporated as well, as in kuˇc. an-loŋko- ‘to have a headache’, from kuˇc. an- ‘to be ill’, ‘to be in pain’ and loŋko ‘head’. The incorporated noun always follows the verb root. In fact, Mapuche noun incorporation must be analysed as part of a general tendency of the language towards compounding, which again is more salient in the verb than in the noun (cf. Smeets 1989: 416–20). The possibilities of Mapuche verbal compounding are illustrated in example (16), which contains a compound of two verb roots and an incorporated object associated with the second verb root. The incorporated object iyal ‘food’ (from i- ‘to eat’, -a- ‘future

18 In modern Mapuche the form are-tu-(which includes a lexicalised suffix -tu-) means ‘to borrow’, rather than ‘to lend’, for which the causative are-l-isnow preferred. The root are-nolonger occurs by itself. We can only conclude that in seventeenth-century Santiago Araucanian are-tu- was used in the meaning ‘to lend’, whereas the root are-was reserved for incorporation. 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 519

Table 5.2 Personal and possessive pronouns in Mapuche

Independent personal pronouns Possessive personal modifiers

Singular Dual Plural Singular Dual Plural

1 pers. inyceˇ * inyciuˇ inycinˇ y nyiyu yiny 2 pers. eymi eymu eymnmimumn 3 pers. fey fey-eŋufey-eŋnnyinyi ...eŋunyi ...eŋn

* In Mapuche studies, the nasal in the first-person pronouns is usually marked as palatal, but the palatal element is, in fact, a case of assimilation of the nasal with the following affricate (Smeets 1989: 129). The sources are not consistent in their treatment of this cluster; Augusta, for instance, records i˜nche ‘I’ (1966: 73), but minche ‘below’ (1966: 150). tense’, and -(e)l ‘non-subject nominaliser’) is itself a nominalised verb form containing a tense marker.

(16) kim-θewma-iyal-la-y19 know-make.ready-food-NE-3.ID ‘He does not know how to cook.’

The image of Araucanian as a language entirely depending on suffixation is nuanced by the fact that it has a unique set of possessive modifiers, which play a crucial role in the grammar. These possessive modifiers have no independent referential meaning and can only occur before nouns and nominalised verbs. They must not be treated as prefixes, however, because there is no phonetic coalescence, and because they can be separated from the noun by another modifier, such as an adjective. The possessive modifiers are formally related to the independent personal pronouns. The grammatical distinctions expressed in the pronominal system are person (first, second, third) and number (singular, dual, plural). Number of a third person is expressed by postposed clitic- like elements (dual eŋu, plural eŋn), which can but need not merge with the preceding noun or pronoun. Table 5.2 contains the inventory of personal pronouns and possessive modifiers in Mapuche. In a possessive construction the presence of a possessive personal modifier is oblig- atory. When the possessive modifier is not preceded by a pronoun or another modifier, an element ta- can be prefixed to it without a notable change in meaning, e.g. ta-nyi, ta-mi, etc. The possessive personal modifier can be preceded by an independent personal pronoun for emphasis or disambiguation (in the case of nyi,which is used both for first person singular and for third person). The pronoun and the possessive modifier must

19 Sequences of vowel-final and vowel-initial stems in compounds may be separated by a pause or a phonetic glottal stop, as is the case in (16). 520 5 The Araucanian Sphere agree in person and, if not third person, also in number.

(17) mi eymi mi ruka 2P.SG house you.SG 2P.SG house ‘your house’ ‘your house’

Number of third person is marked only once, either directly on the pronoun, or by eŋu/eŋn following the head (Smeets 1989: 130).

(18) fey-eŋunyi ruka nyi ruka eŋu he/she/it-D 3P house 3P house 3.D ‘the house of the two of them’ ‘the house of the two of them’

The genitive construction in Mapuche patterns in the same way as the possessive con- structions containing a personal pronoun illustrated in (17) and (18), with the restriction that the possessive modifier must be third person.

y (19) tfa-ˇci wenˇc.un i ruka this-AJ man 3P house ‘this man’s house’

Whereas in possessive constructions the modifier precedes the modified, this may be the other way round if the genitive relationship is not explicitly marked. Such construc- tions usually have a part-of-whole interpretation, e.g. me yene ‘amber’, literally, ‘whale’s dung’, from me ‘dung’ and yene ‘whale’ (Augusta 1966: 143). By contrast, noun phrases in which the modifier precedes the modified, e.g. pron fw ‘knotted thread’, ‘quipu’ (cf. chapter 3), or awkan θuŋu ‘war matter’ (see the text in section 5.1.5), are more common. Real compounds, such as mapu-ˇce also have the latter order of constituents. Mapuche has only one true case marker, the postposition mew (also mo, mu), which indicates oblique or circumstantial case. Its uses are so manifold that it is difficult to reduce them to a single semantic definition. It can refer to any non-specific location (‘at’, ‘to’, ‘from’), time (‘since’, ‘after’, ‘during’), instrument or means (‘with’, ‘by’), cause (‘because of’), circumstance (‘in’), as well as the standard of a comparison (cf. Harmelink 1987; Smeets 1989: 76–83). It can also indicate an indirect object; see (14). More specific spatial relations can be expressed either by means of adverbs indicating the position of a referent (20), or by means of verbs which encode such relations in their lexical meaning (21).

(20) inal-tu lafken ˆ shore-AV sea ‘at the seashore’ (Augusta 1991: 266) 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 521

(21) inal-kle-y lewf mew ˆ be.at.the.edge-ST-3.ID river OC ‘It is at the banks of the river.’ (Augusta 1966: 72)

The Mapuche construction that expresses the concept of comitative does not involve any case marker. Instead, the distinctions of person and number (dual and plural) per- taining to the personal reference system are exploited. There is a special set of markers exclusively for use in the comitative construction, in which those referring to first person dual and plural are identical to the corresponding personal pronouns (inyciuˇ , inycinˇ y); the markers for second person dual and plural are emu and emn, respectively, and those for third person, eŋu and eŋn.20 The comitative marker specifies the grammatical person of the group of referents following a 1 > 2 > 3 hierarchy and the total number of referents (Smeets 1989: 177–9; Salas 1992a: 99–100).

(22) inyceˇ amu-a-n temuko nyipukarukatu21 inycinˇ y I go-F-1.SG.ID Temuco 1P.SG PL neighbour C.1.PL ‘I shall go to Temuco with my neighbours.’ (lit.: ‘I shall go to Temuco my neighbours all of us.’) (Salas 1992a: 99)

Characteristic of this construction is that there are always at least two referents in- volved, but that only one of them needs to be overtly expressed. In that case the addressee has to derive person and number of the referent not mentioned by subtracting the per- son and number features of the overt participant from the person and number features conveyed by the comitative marker (Augusta 1990: 125–7). For instance, in (23) the unexpressed referent is the child’s mother.

(23) ta-mi pnyeny emu DC-2P.SG child (of woman) C.2.D ‘you and your child (addressing a woman)’ (lit.: ‘your child, the two of you’) (Augusta 1990: 126)

When a verb is part of the construction, it may follow the comitative marker and agree with it in person and in number (24).

(24) eymninycinˇ y amu-a-yiny you.PL C.1.PL go-F-1.PL ‘You people will go with me.’ (lit.: ‘You (plural), we (plural), all of us will go.’) (Augusta 1990: 125)

20 Salas (1992a: 99) calls these markers grupalizadores ‘group makers’. 21 The word karukatu ‘neighbour’ has been derived from the expression ka ruka ‘the next house’ (from ka ‘other’ and ruka ‘house’). 522 5 The Araucanian Sphere

A prefix-like element that serves the purpose of indicating a location is pu.Itis used with nouns referring to places, as in pu ruka ‘at home’, pu wariya ‘in town’. Its homophone pu is used mainly with nouns referring to human beings to indicate plural (25).

(25) nyipuweny aku-a-y 1P.SG PL friend arrive-F-3.ID ‘My friends will arrive.’ (Smeets 1989: 91)

Other nominal plural markers are -ke and -wen. The former is used with modi- fiers, in particular, adjectives. It is a distributive suffix translatable as ‘each’ (26).22 Valdivia (1606: 10) considers its use a characteristic of the southern Beliche Indians. The suffix -wen indicates pairs that generically belong together; the stem refers to one of the members of the pair (27).

(26) fca-keˇ ce ˇ old-DB human ‘old people’ (27) fotm-wen ˆ son (of man)-GP ‘father and son’ (Augusta 1966: 53)

As in Quechua and Aymara, the verb in Mapuche typically consists of a root fol- lowed by one or more optional derivational affixes and an inflectional block. The latter comprises negation, mood, tense, personal reference and nominalisation. The personal reference markers in Mapuche are of considerable interest. As in the case of the pronouns and possessive modifiers, there is a three-way distinction both in person (first, second, third) and in number (singular, dual, plural). In the case of first and second person, number marking is compulsory; with third person it is optional. Person and number of subject are generally expressed in the verb; if there is an object, person and number of the object can also be expressed in the verb. The combined codifications of subject and object are traditionally referred to as ‘transitions’ (transiciones), a concept which goes back to a sixteenth-century Quechua grammar (cf. section 3.2.6), and which was further developed by Valdivia (1606).23

22 The parallelism with the way the affix -kama is used in Quechua is remarkable. 23 The concept of ‘transition’ as used by Peter S. DuPonceau (1760–1844) and other founding fathers of the North American descriptive tradition in linguistics may have been borrowed from one of the Araucanian grammars (Mackert 1999). 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 523

Table 5.3 Mapuche subject endings

Indicative Conditional Imperative

1 pers. sing. -()n -l-i -ˇci 1 pers. dual -yu -l-iu -yu 1 pers. plur. -yiny -l-iiny -yiny 2 pers. sing. -()y-mi -()l-mi -ŋe 2 pers. dual -()y-mu -()l-mu -mu 2 pers. plur. -()y-mn-()l-mn-mn 3 pers. -()y -l-e -pe

A feature of Mapuche distinct from Aymara and Quechua is that a third-person object can also be codified within the verb form. When both the subject and the object are third person, there are two possibilities. These are illustrated in (28) and (29).

(28) laŋŋm-fi-y24 ˆ kill-3O-3.ID ‘He killed him.’ (We are talking about X; X killed Y.) (29) laŋŋm-e-y-ew ˆ kill-I-3.ID-3.OV ‘He killed him.’ (We are talking about X; Y killed X.)

The third-person object indicated by -fi-in(28) refers to an entity or person which plays a less dominant role in the discourse than the referent of the subject. The latter is in focus at the moment of speaking. In (29) it is the other way round: the referent of a third person which is in focus is the patient of an action effectuated by a third-person actor who is not yetinfocus at the moment of speaking.25 The two third-person categories emerging from this opposition have been interpreted in terms of a proximate–obviative distinction as known from the grammatical tradition of the (Arnold 1996). The third person in focus is the proximate, whereas the one not in focus is termed obviative. The endings which indicate grammatical person and number of a subject exhibit many formal similarities with the personal pronouns and possessive modifiers. They vary according to moods, three in number, with which they can be combined: the indicative mood (marker -y-or-∅-), the conditional mood (‘if’; marker -l-), and the imperative– hortative mood (no specific marker). Table 5.3 shows the subject endings that correspond to each mood. As can be seen from table 5.3, the indicative marker -y-isonly clearly present in the second-person endings; in the first person non-singular and in the third person a fusion

24 After -fi- the pronunciation of the suffix -y is optional (cf. Smeets 1989: 65). 25 One may be tempted to interpret these forms as passives. However, Mapuche also has a true passive (suffix -ŋe-), which can only be used when the actor is unexpressed. 524 5 The Araucanian Sphere of indicative and person markers may have occurred, and in the first person singular there is no indicative marker at all. The difference in pronunciation between the non-singular first-person conditional endings and those of the other two moods appear to be induced by the phonological context, rather than by their being different endings. The third-person endings can be put into dual or be pluralised by means of the elements eŋu (dual) and eŋn (plural), respectively, which are located after the verb (30). These elements can apply to a third-person subject, as well as to a third-person object. When they indicate plural or dual of the subject, they can be attached directly to the verb after the loss of their initial vowel e (31).

(30) elu-e-y-ew eŋŋnpcˇ.em give-I-3.ID-3.OV 3.PL tobacco ‘He gave them tobacco.’ (Augusta 1966: 39) (31) cˇ.ipa-ke-y-ŋŋnpun go.out-CU-3.ID-3.PL night ‘They go out at night.’ (Smeets 1989: 461)

When the subject is either first or second person, a third-person object can be marked straightforwardly by means of the suffix -fi-. This marker is used with definite, known objects; if the object is indefinite it can be left out.

(32) n-n mapu take-1.SG.ID land ‘I took land.’ (Smeets 1989: 19) (33) n-fi-n mapu take-3O-1.SG.ID land ‘I took the land.’ (Smeets 1989: 19)

When a third-person actor is combined with a first- or second-person patient, the latter is indicated by means of the corresponding subject ending. At the same time, two elements must be added: a suffix -e-,which occupies a position to the left of the subject ending, and an element -ew or mew,which appears immediately after the subject ending. When the first- and second-person markers are singular and in the indicative, -ew is added directly to these markers; the second-person marker -y-mi loses its final vowel. When the markers are dual or plural the added element is -mew or -mu.

(34) leli-e-n-ew watch-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV ‘He watched me.’ (Salas 1992a: 120) (35) leli-e-y-m-ew watch-I-ID-2.SG-3.OV ‘He watched you.’ (Salas 1992a: 121) 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 525

(36) kulyi-e-yiny-mu pay-I-1.PL.ID-3.OV ‘He paid us.’ (Smeets 1989: 195) (37) pe-e-y-mu-mew see-I-ID-2.D-3.OV ‘He saw the two of you.’ (Salas 1992a: 125) (38) leli-e-ˇci-mu watch-I-1.SG.IM-3.OV ‘May he watch me!’ (Smeets 1989: 235)

As we have seen in the example of laŋm-e-y-ew (29), a similar formation to the above ˆ obtains when an obviative third-person actor is combined with a proximate third-person patient. All the forms in -e ...(m)ew have in common that they involve a third-person actor which is considered to be lower than the patient in a saliency hierarchy defined by Arnold (1996: 26) as 1 > 2 > 3 proximate > 3obviative (cf. also Salas 1992a: 125). The suffix -e-,which is present in all these forms, has been interpreted as an inverse marker (Arnold 1996: 30).26 The inverse marker -e- also plays a role in the combination of a second-person actor with a first-person patient. When the inverse marker -e- is accompanied by a first- person-singular subject ending (-n, -l-i), the resulting form refers to the transition of a second-person actor to a first-person patient with the restriction that both must be singular. In this case the imperative and indicative forms are identical (Smeets 1989: 235; Salas 1992a: 127–8).

(39) leli-e-n watch-I-1.SG.ID(IM) ‘You watched me.’ ‘Watch me!’ (Salas 1992a: 128)

When either the actor or the patient is non-singular, another inverse suffix, -mu-, takes the place of -e-. Number distinctions are indicated in the first person (the patient), but are left implicit in the second person (the actor); the imperative endings are used where relevant (cf. Smeets 1989: 199).

(40) leli-mu-ˇci watch-I-1.SG.IM ‘Watch (dual or plural) me!’ (Salas 1992a: 127)

26 Grimes (1985) is reported to have been the first to treat the Mapuche personal reference transitions as an inverse system. 526 5 The Araucanian Sphere

(41) leli-mu-yu watch-I-1.D.ID ‘You (any number) watched the two of us.’ (Salas 1992a: 128)

In the combination of a first-person actor and a second-person patient the inverse suffix plays a limited role, possibly because the requirement of the actor being hierarchically lower in saliency than the patient is not met. Nevertheless, a form in -e-yu is used to denote the combination of a first-person actor with a second-person patient when the total number of participants is no more than two; hence the presence of the first-person-dual ending -yu.Ifthe sum of the participants is more than two, the reflexive suffix -(u)w-27 is used in combination with the first-person-plural ending -yiny.

(42) leli-e-yu watch-I-1.D.ID ‘I watched you.’ (Salas 1992a: 128) (43) leli-w-yiny watch-RF-1.PL.ID ‘I watched you (more than two)’. ‘We watched you’. ‘We (more than two) watched each other’. (Salas 1992a: 128)

The situation outlined above is that of the Mapuche heartland (former Araucan´ıa). Valdivia (1606) recorded a very different use of the marker -e- in the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect. In that variety the inverse system was apparently not checked by any considerations of hierarchy, the inverse suffix -e- being freely combined with the second- person subject endings in order to indicate any combination of a first-person actor with a second-person patient. There were number distinctions only for the (second-person) patient, not for the (first-person) actor: elueymi ‘I/we give to thee’, elueymu ‘I/we give to you two’ and elueymn [elueymn] ‘I/we give to you all’.28 A similar situation was recorded for the ‘Indians of the South’, presumably the Huilliche, by Augusta (1990: 84); cf. also Salas (1992a:128). The Mapuche language has an elaborate system of verbal nominalisations, which play a central role in the formation of complex sentences, relative and temporal clauses, etc. The nominalisation in -()n,asinlef-n ‘run’, ‘running’ or aku-n ‘arrive’, ‘arrival’, has many characteristics of an infinitive. It is limited in its morphological possibilities, in

27 The marker -(u)w- in its transitional function is to be kept apart from -(u)w- in its truly reflexive function, because the order and combinational possibilities of the two differ considerably (Smeets 1989: 385–6). 28 Strangely, with a singular second-person object, the imperative form (elueymi)was identical to its indicative counterpart, but when the object was dual or plural, there was a difference: eluemu ‘let me/us give to you two’, eluemn [eluemn] ‘let me/us give to you all’. 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 527 particular in relation to tense, but it is used in a wide range of syntactic constructions. The actor corresponding to the event can be indicated by a possessive modifier (44).

(44) ramtu-e-yu chew nyimle-n ask-I-1.D.ID where 3P be-IF ‘I asked you where he lives.’ (Smeets 1989: 238)

Stative and agentive nominalisations can be formed by adding the affixes -el and -lu, respectively. Both types of nominalisation can be combined with tense (see later) and have an extensive range of syntactic uses. Nominalised verbs in -el can refer either to the event denoted by the base itself, or to any entity which is not the actor of that event. It can be used in relative clauses or when referring to occurrences in general. The actor can be indicated by a possessive modifier.

(45) kim-nie-ncem ˇ mi entu-el know-CN-1.SG.ID what 2P.SG take.out-SN ‘I know what you took out.’ (Smeets 1989: 239) (46) fali-y ta-mnkelyu-el [Spanish valer ‘to be worth’] be.worth DC-2P.PL help-SN ‘It is good that you helped.’ (Smeets 1989: 257)

The agentive nominalisation in -lu refers to the actor or theme of the event denoted by the base (‘the one who ...’), especially in relative clauses. It can also act as the verb in a temporal clause. In one specific combination, with the future marker -a-,itcan be used as a finite verb, thus competing with the future indicative.

(47) la-lu el-el-ŋe-ke-y ko kinye metawe mew ˆ die-AG put-BN-PS-CU-3.ID water one jug OC ‘The deceased is provided with water in a jug.’ (Augusta 1990: 192) (48) piˇcice ˇ kim-nu-lu small human know-NE-AG ‘a child that does not know’ (Smeets 1989: 282) (49) pe-fi-lu nyiˇcaw amu-tu-y see-3O-AG 3P father go-RS-3.ID ‘When he saw his father, he went back.’ (Smeets 1989: 287) (50) fey fta-ŋe-a-lu ˆ he/she husband-CV-F-AG ‘She will be married some day.’ (Smeets 1989: 290)

In the Mapuche of the Araucan´ıa an adjectivising suffix -ciˇ takes the place of -lu in relative clauses of which the verb precedes the antecedent immediately. Interestingly, this 528 5 The Araucanian Sphere must be the result of relatively recent restructuring. Valdivia (1606) describes relative clauses in -lu followed by ciˇ , and then by the antecedent. It appears that in such cases ciˇ wasadeictic element.29

(51) elyapra-pa-ˇci kyenmew a.little rise-H-AJ moon OC ‘at the time when the moon had risen only a little (was in its first quarter)’ (Augusta 1990: 191) (52) huya acu-tu-lu chi Patiru vey may ta inche [wiya aku-tu-luci ˇ patiru βey may tainyce]ˇ yesterday arrive-RS-AG DC Father that then FO I/me ‘The Father who arrived yesterday, that was me.’ (Valdivia 1606: 47–8) Although the syntactic uses of -el and -lu nominalisation are complementary, one remarkable anomaly has to be mentioned. In temporal clauses, a form in -el can replace the verb form in -lu when the subject of the verb is a first person singular (cf. Smeets 1989: 262, 290). The replacement is optional. With any other person or number it would be impossible. Example (53) illustrates the use of first person singular -el (in amu-el). It further contains an instance of -el, shortened to -l,asrequired after the future-tense marker -a- (in umaw-tu-a-l); such forms in -a-l indicate a goal.

(53) fey-eŋŋnay-w-y-ŋŋninyceˇ amu-el nyi umaw-tu-a-l he/she-3.PL enjoy-RF-3.ID-PL I go-SN 1P.SG sleep-V-F-SN ‘They were glad when I went to sleep.’ (Smeets 1989: 262)

As in Quechua (but unlike Aymaran), the personal reference transitions of Mapuche have been copied onto the nominalisations. Although not all the possible combinations can be marked explicitly, the direct–inverse distinction is reflected by the use of different forms (cf. Arnold 1996: 35). In the direct (non-inverse) transitions, as well as in the (inverse) transition of a second-person actor with a first-person patient, a special ending -fi-el takes the place of -el in the present-day dialect of the Araucan´ıa heartland. In this ending the element -fi-nolonger has its original function of a third-person object marker. In the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect -fi-el did not occur; instead of it, the ending -bi-n [βin] was used.

(54) ta-mi elu-bi-n [ta-mi elu-βi-n] DC-2P.SG give-3O-IF ‘what I givetoyou’ (Valdivia 1606: 28)

29 This state of affairs still exists in the Argentinian Ranquelino dialect (Fern´andez Garay, personal communication). 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 529

The possessive modifier which must precede the -fi-el nominalisation normally refers to the subject (actor) of the nominalised verb. There is one notable exception, however. In the interaction between a first and a second person the possessive modifier always marks second person, even when it corefers to the object (1S.2O), rather than to the subject of the nominalised verb. The example from Valdivia (54) illustrates this anomaly. Disambiguation of the actor and patient roles is effectuated by the addition of personal pronouns located on either side of the construction, following the SVO pattern (Smeets 1989: 272).

(55) inyceˇ mi pe-fi-el eymi I2P.SG see-3O-SN you ‘that I see you’ (modifier refers to patient) (56) eymi mi pe-fi-el inyceˇ you2P.SG see-3O-SN I/me ‘that you see me’ (modifier refers to actor)

The inverse transitions that have a third-person actor are expressed in the nominalisa- tion by means of the ending -e-t-ew,which, among other elements, contains the inverse marker -e-.Inthis case it is the patient that is identified by the possessive marker.

(57) nyi pe-e-t-ew 3P see-I-N-3.OV ‘the fact that an (obviative) third person sees him/her/them’ (58) nyi pe-e-t-ew 1P.SG see-I-N-3.OV ‘the fact that (any) third person sees me’ (59) yu pe-e-t-ew 1P.D see-I-N-3.OV ‘the fact that (any) third person sees the two of us’

Another nominalisation strategy in Mapuche involves the suffix -m,which refers to a place, an instrument, or a tense-marked event. It is used for specific events with known participants. It does not occur by itself but is found in combinations with temporal elements, namely -a-m ‘future place or means’, ‘aim’, -mu-m ‘past place or means’, ‘past infinitive’ and -pe-ye-m ‘usual place or means’ (cf. Smeets 1989: 263–71). The suffix -we indicates a place or instrument with general value (no specification of tense or participant).30 The suffix -fe (-voe in seventeenth-century Santiago Araucanian) indicates an actor without any specification of tense or situation.

30 The suffix -we in Mapuche is reminiscent of Aymara -(:)wi,which has almost exactly the same function. Both are frequently used in place names. 530 5 The Araucanian Sphere

(60) meta-we ‘jug’ [meta- ‘to carry in arms’] (61) meta-we-fe31 ‘jug maker’ (Augusta 1966: 145) Several other strategies are in use to form adjectives from verbs, e.g. -fal in ay-fal ‘lovable’ from ay- ‘to love’. A non-productive formation is the suffix -en,which forms both adjectives and nouns from intransitive verb stems ending in --, e.g. ray-en ‘flower’, from ray- ‘to flower’, and aŋk-en (∼ aŋk-n)‘dry’, from aŋk- ‘to dry’ (cf. werk-en in section 5.1.5). The verbal tenses of Mapuche are particular in that there is no real present tense. If the verb represents an event, the unmarked tense is normally translated as a preterit. If, on the other hand, it refers to a state or quality, a present-tense interpretation is preferred.32 This state of affairs seems to be typical for the Mapuche of the Araucanian heartland. There is no sign of it in Huilliche (Contreras and Alvarez-Santullano 1989), nor was it common practice in the Mapocho dialect of Santiago. Valdivia (1606: 13) describes it as a characteristic of the southern Indians (Beliches), but adds that they would preferably include a suffix -lle-[lye] in the verb form (elullen ‘I gave it’). In modern Mapuche -lye-isanemphatic suffix not related to tense. Valdivia also affirms that the Indians of Santiago were in the habit of ‘adorning’ their verb forms with an infixed element -po- and a postposed element -che [ˇce]; e.g. pe-po-n-che ‘I see’. Some basic examples of the unmarked tense in Araucan´ıa Mapuche are:

(62) kpa-n come-1.SG.ID ‘I came.’ (63) kim-n know-1.SG.ID ‘I know.’ There are explicit markers which indicate past (-fu-) and future (-a-). These tense markers can occur in most combinations, although not in the imperative, nor with certain nominalisers. They can also be used cumulatively (-a-fu-)inorder to indicate a future of the past. Since the unmarked tense refers to past actions as well, the use of -fu- implies that an event is completed and that its results are no longer valid, nor relevant. Very often it refers to actions that failed (cf. Smeets 1989: 300–3). After a vowel a the future suffix usually takes the shape -ya-. The suffix -()wye- indicates previousness and can be

31 Null verbalisation is found with verbs of manufacturing; compare ilo- ‘to slaughter’ (ilo ‘meat’), kofke- ‘to make bread’ (kofke ‘bread’). 32 Smeets (1989: 203–5) assigns perfective aspect meaning (implying successful completion) to the unmarked tense form, but makes an exception for the verbs meke- ‘to be busy’ and ŋe- ‘to be’, ‘to exist’. In this perspective, the verbs kim- ‘to learn’, ‘to know’ and nie- ‘to get’, ‘to have’ are ambivalent. 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 531 followed by other tense markers in anterior past and anterior future constructions. The suffix -()wma can indicate a perfect tense or previousness, but it does not take personal reference markers. The resulting form can be interpreted both as a verb and as a noun (Augusta 1903: 44; Smeets 1989: 291–2).

(64) aku-a-n arrive-F-1.SG.ID ‘I will arrive.’ (Augusta 1990: 29) (65) aku-fu-n arrive-PA-1.SG.ID ‘I was arriving/did arrive (but that is no longer relevant).’ (Augusta 1990: 28) (66) aku-la-ya-fu-n arrive-NE-F-PA-1.SG.ID ‘I was not going to arrive (I did not have that intention).’ (Augusta 1990: 29) (67) la-wye-ya-n ˆ die-PV-F-1.SG.ID ‘I will be dead by then.’ (Augusta 1990: 44) 33 (68) ncˇ.am-ka-e-n-ewcum- ˇ ŋe-wma ti walon conversation-V-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV how-LS-PE DC war ‘He told me how the war had been.’ (Smeets 1989: 292)

In order to describe ongoing events explicitly linked to the present, the Mapuche language has a series of options which are partly morphological and partly syntactic. The suffix -nie-ishomophonous and probably historically identical to the verb nie- ‘to have’. It is used with transitive verbs, where it conveys the meaning of a continued or ongoing transitive action (45), (69). The suffix -(k)le- (-kle- after consonants, -le- after vowels) is used either to denote a state resulting from an event, or, with intransitive verbs, an ongoing event, depending on the (telic or atelic) semantics of the verb (21), (70), (71); cf. Smeets (1989: 368–75). The suffix or root -meke- can indicate an event in progress with any verb of action (72). Finally, the adverb petu ‘still’ located before the verb also has the effect of referring to present tense (73). Without further indication all verbs carrying these elements are interpreted as present tense.

(69) ay-nie-e-yu love-CN-I-1.D.ID ‘I love you’ (Smeets 1989: 388)

33 Walon:avariant of malon ‘raid’. 532 5 The Araucanian Sphere

(70) aku-le-y arrive-PR-3.ID ‘He is arriving.’ (Smeets 1989: 370) (71) an-m-kle-y sit-T-ST-3.ID ‘It is planted.’ (Smeets 1989: 369) (72) i-meke-n eat-PR-1.SG.ID ‘I am eating.’ (73) petu i-n PN eat-1.SG.ID ‘I am eating.’

The verbal suffix -ke- indicates a customary action. It can be combined with other elements, including tense and aspect markers. Without further-tense specification it refers to a habit in the present, as in (47), (74) and (75).

(74) kpa-ke-y-mi come-CU-ID-2.SG ‘You always come.’ (Augusta 1990: 40) (75) i-ke-fu-y-ŋŋn eat-CU-PA-3.ID-PL ‘They used to eat.’ (Augusta 1990: 40)

Negation is indicated morphologically in Mapuche. There are three different markers: -la-, -nu- (or -no-) and -ki-l-.Inmodern Mapuche, the distribution of the negative markers is relatively straightforward. The marker -la-isused in the indicative mood, as in (16), (66) and (76); -ki-l- (or -ki-nu-l-) is used in the imperative (77); and -nu-isused in the conditional mood (78), in all nominalisations (48), and in nominal expressions such as negative pronouns (79) and negative nominal predicates (80). In the latter case nu is a free element or a clitic, rather than a suffix.

(76) amu-la-yu go-NE-1.D.ID ‘The two of us did not go.’ (Smeets 1989: 236) (77) amu-ki.l-yu go-NE-1.D.IM ‘Let us not go (the two of us)!’ (Smeets 1989: 236) 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 533

(78) amu-nu-l-iu go-NE-CD-1.D ‘if the two of us do not go’ (Smeets 1989: 236) (79) cemˇ nu rume what NE ever ‘nothing’ (80) fey θomo nu he/she/it woman NE ‘He is not a woman.’

The ending -ki-l- consists of two elements, which can be separated by the inverse marker -e- and by the third-person object marker -fi-. In some transitional combinations requiring the inverse marker, the endings following -l- are those of the conditional mood, rather than those of the imperative. This is the case in the transition of a second-person- singular actor to a first-person-singular patient:

(81) leli-ki-e-l-i (not: ∗leli-ki-e-l-ˇci) watch-NE-I-CD-1.SG ‘Do not watch me!’ (Smeets 1989: 237)

The formal relationship between the negative imperative marker and the condi- tional mood marker is strongly confirmed by Valdivia’s observations concerning the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect. In that dialect the negative imperative marker -qui- [ki] was entirely embedded in the conditional mood paradigm (82), although some hybrid forms were also recorded (83).

(82) elu-qui-l-mi (not: ∗elu-qui-l-¯ge) [elu-ki-l-mi] give-NE-CD-2.SG ‘Do not give!’ (Valdivia 1606: 24) (83) elu-qui-l-e elu-qui-le-pe [elu-ki-l-e] [elu-ki-l-e-pe] give-NE-CD-3 give-NE-CD-3-3.IM ‘That he may not give!’ ‘That he may not give!’ (Valdivia 1606: 24)

Valdivia (1606: 24) also reports the use of -no-, in competition with -la-inindicative forms such as elu-po-no-n-che ‘I do not give’. The Mapuche verb can contain a large variety of derivational extensions. Among them are valency-changing affixes, as well as spatial, modal and aspectual affixes. Some 534 5 The Araucanian Sphere aspectual affixes have already been mentioned in connection with the present tense. The following overview is not meant to be exhaustive. Among the valency-changing affixes, the following may be mentioned: a reflexive -(u)w- (-uw- after consonants), cf. (7), (8); a passive -ŋe- (with an unspecified agent), cf. (47); a benefactive -(l)el- (-el- after consonants, -l- or -lel- after vowels), cf. (47); a detrimental -(ny)ma- (-ma- or -nyma- after consonants), cf. (12); and a causative transitiviser -(e)l- (-el- or -l- after consonants). A further non-productive formation used for causative transitivisation is the suffix -()m- (cf. section 5.1.2). Example (84) illustrates three of the valency-changing extensions mentioned here:

(84) la-ŋ-m-nyma-ŋe-y nyiˇcewa ˆ . die-EU-CA-DM-PS-3.ID 3P dog ‘He was affected by the killing of his dog.’

Among the spatial markers of Mapuche, -me-, -pa- and -pu- occupy a central posi- tion. Whereas -me- indicates motion away from the speaker to another location, with a connotation of temporariness (‘itive’, ‘thither’), -pa- indicates motion towards the speaker or location near the speaker (‘ventive’, ‘hither’). The third element indicates a location remote from the speaker without a previous motion. Both -pa- and -pu- can be preceded by an element -()r- yielding meanings, such as ‘on the way here’ and ‘on the way there’. Circular motion can be indicated by means of the suffix -yaw-(-kiaw- after consonants).

(85) fey-pi-ŋe-r-pa-n that-say-PS-MT-H-1.SG.ID ‘I was told on my way here.’ (Smeets 1989: 338) 34 (86) klac ˇ.ipantu-∅-me-n arxentina three year-V-TH-1.SG.ID Argentina ‘I spent three years in Argentina.’ (Smeets 1989: 342) (87) lef-kiaw-n run-CR-IF ‘to run around’ (Augusta 1966: 118)

Among the remaining modal and aspectual suffixes that are worth mentioning is -()rke-,which combines the meanings of a reportative and a sudden discovery form (cf. section 3.2.6 on Quechua grammar). The suffix -knu- indicates ‘to leave the patient in a situation’.35 The suffix -tu- indicates restitution of an original situation; a second

34 A case of null verbalisation: c.ˇipantu- ‘to be/spend a year’, from c.ˇipantu ‘year’. 35 The function of -knu-isreminiscent of that of -rpari-inQuechua; cf. section 3.2.7. 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 535 application of -tu-isthat of a non-causative transitiviser. The suffix -fal- can be in- terpreted as ‘must’ or, as a transitiviser ‘to order’; -faluw- indicates ‘simulation’. The suffixes -fem- ‘immediately’ and -we- ‘already’, ‘again’ have time-related functions.

(88) wenye-nie-nyma-rke-fi-y-ŋŋnnyi mapu steal-CN-DM-SD-3O-3.ID-3.PL 3P land ‘They kept robbing them of their land without them being aware of it.’ (Smeets 1989: 323) (89) cˇana-knu-y36 nyi lakawelyu . ˆ lie.down-LB-3.ID 3P dead horse ‘He left his dead horse behind (and continued his way).’ (Augusta 1966: 236) (90) n-tu-a-yiny mapu take-RS-F-1.PL.ID land ‘We will take land back!’ (a land reform slogan) (91) tofk-tu-n spit-T-IF ‘to spit at someone’ (Augusta 1991: 150) (92) wiyac ˇ.ipa-fal-fu-y-mi yesterday leave-OB-PA-ID-2.SG ‘You should have left yesterday.’ (Augusta 1990: 292) (93) inyceˇ ŋilya-fal-n kamisa Ibuy-OB.T-1.SG.ID shirt ‘I had a shirt bought.’ (Smeets 1989: 359) (94) lyaγ alyk-n, welu alyk-w-faluw-la-n half hear-1.SG.ID but hear-RF-SI-NE-1.SG.ID ‘I heard half of it, but I pretended not to hear.’ (Smeets 1989: 349) (95) kintu-fem-fu-y ka θomo look.for-M-PA-3.ID other woman ‘He immediately looked for another woman.’ (Smeets 1989: 345) (96) kpa-we-la-ya-y come-CM-NE-F-3.ID ‘He will not come anymore.’ (Augusta 1966: 261)

In spite of the large choice of morphological options of the Mapuche verb, several modal functions are indicated by means of preverbal adverbs, rather than by affixes. Two examples of such adverbs are kpa ‘want’ and pepi ‘can’.

36 ‘To lie down’, ‘to lie bare’ is c.ˇana-le-; cf. c.ˇan- ‘to fall’. 536 5 The Araucanian Sphere

(97) kpa amu-la-y want go-NE-3.ID ‘He does not want to go.’ (Augusta 1966: 113) (98) pepi amu-la-ya-n can go-NE-F-1.SG.ID ‘I won’t be able to go.’ (Augusta 1966: 180)

The expression of nominal predicates in Mapuche is realised in different ways. One option is to verbalise the noun either by means of zero verbalisation (99), or by a verbal derivational affix used for that purpose, as in (100) and (101).

(99) lγ-∅-y white-V-3.ID ‘It became white.’ (Smeets 1989: 204) (100) lγ-kle-y white-V.ST-3.ID ‘It is white.’‘It has become white.’ (Smeets 1989: 34) (101) kiˇsu-le-y alone-V.ST-3.ID ‘He is (left) alone.’ (Smeets 1989: 156)

Another option is to affix the element -ŋe-. This element, which is homophonous with the verbal passive marker, is historically derived from *ŋe- ‘to be’, ‘to be there’. Although still used independently in the seventeenth century (cf. Valdivia 1606), the verb ŋe-isnow limited to negative (ŋe-la-) and spatially marked (ŋe-me-, ŋe-pa-) verb forms (cf. Smeets 1989: 159–60). The suffix -ŋe- indicates a property of the subject. Its base may be a noun, as well as an adjective (102). In some cases it refers to possession (‘to have’, ‘to get’), as in (103), and it can also refer to existence, as in (104).

(102) nor-ŋe-y straight-CV-3.ID ‘It is straight (always).’ (Smeets 1989: 156) (103) kure-ŋe-n wife-CV-IF ‘to be married’, ‘to marry (of men)’ (Augusta 1966: 107) (104) krf-ŋe-y wind-CV-3.ID ‘There is wind.’ (Smeets 1989: 158)

Still another option for expressing a nominal predicate relation is by juxtaposing the nouns. This option indicates that two entities are identical, rather than that one is the 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 537 property of the other (105). For an example with a negation see (80). For a seventeenth- century example, in which the nominal predicate is introduced by the focus marker ta, see (52).

(105) fey-ˇci θomo nyi inan lamŋen that-AJ woman 1P.SG next.in.line sister ‘That woman is my youngest sister.’ (Smeets 1989: 182)

Deixis in Mapuche comprises a system of demonstratives, which includes three degrees: tfa ‘this’, (t)fey ‘that (near addressee)’ and tye ‘that (distant)’. When used as modifiers, these deictic elements must be followed by the adjectivising suffix -ˇci.Valdivia (1606) records these same forms, but adds that Santiago dialect speakers preferred ma and ma-chi to tva [tßa] and tva-chi [tßaˇci], respectively. The word fey is also used for ‘he’, ‘she’ and ‘it’, Mapuche having no grammatical gender distinctions. There are special deictics for ‘here’ (faw) and ‘there’ (tyew, γ yw) and a deictic verb root fem- ‘to do like that’ (cf. Quechua hina-). Two deictic elements, ta and ti, are widely used for different purposes. Smeets (1989: 108–14) analyses them as anaphoric elements, of which the first one appeals to knowl- edge shared by the speech participants, and the second one to general knowledge. One of the functions of ta is to focalise a noun or noun phrase that occupies the final position in a sort of cleft construction; see (52). For an example of ti, see (68). Interrogative elements are partly derived from a verb root cumˇ -asincumˇ l ‘when?’, cum-ˇ ŋe-ˇci ‘how?’ and cum-ˇ ŋe-lu ‘why?’. The related roots cemˇ and cewˇ refer to ‘what?’ and ‘where?’, respectively.37 Note also iney ‘who?’, tu-ˇci ‘which?’ and tunt e(n) ‘how ˆ much?’ (Smeets 1989: 132–5). Indefinite pronouns are formed by adding rume to the interrogative root, negative pronouns by adding nu rume; cf. (79). Mapuche has a fair number of sentence particles with functions that are reminiscent of those of the sentential suffixes in Aymara and Quechua; e.g. ciˇ expresses doubt, kay apivotal question, and may provokes an affirmative answer (Smeets 1989: 431–49).

(106) inyceˇ amu-tu-a-n, eymi kay I go-RS-F-1.SG.ID you how.about ‘I am going back, how about you?’ (Smeets 1989: 435)

5.1.4 Lexicon The root lexicon of the Mapuche language is rich and varied, as is witnessed by Augusta’s authoritative dictionary (1916). It is the lexicon of a people that regarded proficiency

37 There is a striking analogy with the Aymara interrogative roots kam(a)- and kaw(ki); cf. section 3.3.7. 538 5 The Araucanian Sphere in rhetoric as a prerequisite for leadership and one that succeeded in staying aloof from European cultural influence and forced Christianisation until a relatively recent date. Its pride and spirit of independence will certainly have played a role. The Mapuche lexicon may have remained more intact than that of other languages. However, Valdivia’s grammar contains terms referring to military activity, which are no longer viable today (e.g. queta-cara-n ‘to destroy cities’). Borrowed elements from Aymara, Quechua and Spanish are clearly discernible but do not play a dominant role. The influence of Aymara (not Quechua) in the numeral system (pataka ‘hundred’) is worth mentioning. Quechua loans are aˇcawaly ‘chicken’, ‘rooster’ (Quechua atawalypa name of the last Inca ruler), awka ‘rebel’ (Quechua awqa), calˇ ywa ‘fish’ (Quechua calˇ ywa), cilˇ yka-tu- ‘to write’ (Quechua qilyqa), miŋgako- ‘to hire farm-hands’ (Quechua -ku-, probably through Spanish), wampo ‘boat’ (Quechua wampu). Spanish loans were often adopted in the early contact period when the phonetic permeability between the two languages was not yet very advanced. They include some very characteristic cases, such as alyfiθ ‘pea’ (Spanish arveja), kapra ‘goat’ (Spanish cabra), manˇsun ‘ox’ (Spanish mans´on ‘big tame one’), napor ‘turnips’ (Spanish nabos) and ufiˇsa ‘sheep’ (Spanish oveja); cf. Smeets (1989: 68–71). The numbering system of Mapuche is decimal. The first ten numbers do not show any influence from other known languages: kinye ‘one’, epu ‘two’, kla ‘three’, meli ‘four’, keˇcu ‘five’, kayu ‘six’, reγle ‘seven’, pura ‘eight’, aylya ‘nine’, mari ‘ten’. Multipliers precede the higher units, whereas units follow them, e.g. epu mari ‘twenty’, mari kinye ‘eleven’. ‘Hundred’ (pataka) and ‘thousand’ (waraŋka) are from Aymara (pataka, waranqa), although originally from Quechua. Valdivia (1606: 50) men- tions the existence of a system of month names, which have long since fallen into oblivion. The Mapuche kinship system remained well preserved until relatively recently. Au- gusta (1990: 251–4) and Moesbach (1963: 193–5) provide an insightful inventory of Mapuche kinship terms. Kinship terms may differ according to gender of ego, except for the terms for father (cawˇ ) and mother (nyuke), which are the same for both. Where a man distinguishes son (fotm) and daughter (nyawe), a woman uses one term for both ˆ (pnyeny). The terminology for in-laws (cover term ŋilyany)isnearly as complex and specific as that for blood relatives (cover term moŋeyel). Many terms have double or complementary functions. For instance, a woman calls her paternal grandmother kuku, but also her son’s children. The term lamŋen means ‘sister of man’, but also ‘brother or sister of woman’. Additionally, a woman calls lamŋen her cousins by an uncle on her father’s side, and by an aunt on her mother’s side. The colour terms of Mapuche are of interest in that most of them seem to fit in a single phonological model, which consists of an initial k,avariable vowel, a resonant or fricative (in one case a cluster), and a high vowel : kalyf ‘blue’, kar ‘green’, kaˇs 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 539

‘grey’, kel ‘red’, kol ‘brown’, kur ‘black’.38 ‘White’ (lγ) and ‘yellow’(coˇ θ)donot fit this pattern. Mapuche is rich in verbal expressions involving reduplicated roots, which in many cases have an onomatopoeic character; e.g. nuf=nuf-tu- ‘to sniff’, wir=wir- ‘to screech’, wirar=wirar-ŋe- ‘to cry constantly’ (Smeets 1989: 403–8).

5.1.5 Mapuche sample text Mapuche oral literature is rich and varied. Salas (1992a) distinguishes two types of genre: the epew or apew,which relates mythical events and traditions, and the nc.ˇam orŋc.ˇam, which is supposed to have a historical content. A well-known example of a traditional myth is Manquian, the story of a man who changes into a rock in the ocean. Appertaining to daily life is the series of narratives known as Federiconi ˜ n¨utram (Federico’s Stories) by Segundo Llam´ın Canulaf (1987). Most narratives are characterised by an abundant use of direct speech accompanied by the verb pi-orfey-pi- ‘to say’. The embedding of direct speech in direct speech can attain great complexity and may result in long sentences. Hearsay is frequently indicated, either by means of the reportative (verbal suffix -rke-), or by the expression pi-am ‘it is said’.39 The following text fragment is taken from Pascual Co˜na’s Testimonio de un cacique mapuche (Testimony of a Mapuche Chief) (Co˜na 1984: 270–1), first published in Moesbach (1930). It describes the climate which eventually led to the last great uprising of the Mapuche chiefs in 1881.40

1. kuyfi tfa-ˇci mapu-ˇce mt e-we γθe-ke-fu-y pu wiŋka. ˆ in.old.times this-AJ land-people much-LS hate-CU-PA-3.ID PL non-Indian In old times these Mapuche people used to hate the Huincas very much.

The term huinca is used by the for all non-Indian people, including white Argentinians and Chileans, but also Spanish-speaking mestizos. The adverb mt e means ˆ ‘much’; its longer variant mt e-we indicates a very high degree ‘too much’. The combi- ˆ nation -ke-fu- refers to a habit in the past.

2. “ˇcem-ye-la-fi-yiny fey-ˇci pu wiŋka-nymace. ˇ what-V-NE-3O-1.PL.ID that-AJ PL non.Indian-LS human “We are not related to those half-foreign people.

38 A similar persistent pattern for colour terms is found in Arawakan languages (cf. Payne 1991a). The reason for this remarkable similarity remains to be explored. Cf. also Atacame˜no ckaˆala ‘yellow’, ckaˆari ‘green’ (Va¨ısse et al. 1896) and Quechua qilyu ‘yellow’. 39 Not attested in the sample text. 40 Direct speech is indicated by means of double quotation marks (“”); embedded direct speech by single quotation marks (‘’); and second degree embedded direct speech by pointed brackets (<>). 540 5 The Araucanian Sphere

The verbalising element -ye- can be translated as ‘to have (someone) in a (type of relationship)’; cf. Smeets (1989: 164). It may be derived from the verb ye- ‘to carry’. The combination cem-yeˇ - with a negation is to be interpreted as ‘not to have any rela- tionship (by blood or other) with someone’. The term wiŋka-nyma ‘Hispanicised Indian’ (Augusta 1966: 276) contains a suffix -nyma,which is formally identical to the verbal detrimental suffix. It is often found in adverbs, but here it means something like ‘pseudo-’ or ‘half-’.

3. ka molyfny tfa yeŋŋn”, pi-ke-fu-y-ŋŋn. other blood this 3.PL say-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL They are of a different blood,” they used to say.

The word ka means ‘other’, ‘another’; the expression ka molyfny means ‘of different blood’, ‘not related’. After a vowel the third-person plural element eŋn can be preceded by y-.

y y 4. kin e-ke muc ˇ.r-m-ke-fu-y-ŋŋn malon θŋŋutfa-ˇci l ek-le-ˇci pu loŋko pu wiŋka mew. one-DB OC be.equal-CA-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL raid thing this-AJ close-ST-AJ PL chief PL non-Indian OC Sometimes these chiefs who were neighbours to the Huincas used to organise some raid against them.

The word kinye-ke (from kinye ‘one’) means ‘some’, ‘one by one’; followed by mu or mew it is translated as ‘sometimes’, ‘on some occasions’. The verb c.ˇr-m- ‘to make equal’, ‘to compensate’ is also used in the meaning ‘to organise’, ‘to set up’. The expression malon θŋu, literally ‘raid-thing’, is translated by Augusta (1966: 33) as ‘some raid’. The continuative suffix -(k)le- in lyek-le-ˇci acts as a verbaliser.

5. fey mewc ˇ.aw-lu eŋŋnkewa-tu-ke-fu-y-ŋŋn, inaw-tu-ke-fu-y-ŋŋn. that OC unite-AG 3.PL fight-LS-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL close-T-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL Then they would come together and fight, and they would suffer a disaster.

The verb kewa-tu- ‘to fight’, ‘to hit’ is derived from kewa-, which has the same meaning. The verb inaw-tu- (or inyaw-tu-) means ‘to suffer a disaster’; its semantic relation to ina ‘next’ and inaw ‘vicinity’ is not transparent.

6. fey mew θoy γθe-wiŋka-ke-fu-y-ŋŋn. that OC more hate-non.Indian-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL After that they used to be even bigger Huinca-haters. 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 541

7. fem-ŋe-ˇci nyimt e-we γθe-wiŋka-ke-n eŋŋnˇcr-rke-y iˇco-kom ˆ . . mapu mew eŋŋnnyiawka-ny-pe-ŋe-a-l kom wiŋka. act.thus-LS-AJ 3P much-LS hate-non.Indian-CU-IF 3.PL be.equal-SD- 3.ID right-all country OC 3.PL 3P revolt-EU-see-PS-F-SN all non.Indian Because they had such hatred of the Huincas, they had agreed that all Huincas everywhere in the country would be faced with an uprising.

The expression fem-ŋe-ˇci means ‘in that way’, ‘thus’; it is derived from the deictic verb fem- ‘to act thus’. The infinitive with incorporated noun γθe-wiŋka-ke-n is used without a marker as a causal complement, ‘because of their strong hatred’, ‘being such their hatred’. The verb c.ˇr- means ‘to be equal’; here it has the connotation of plotting. The sudden discovery marker -()rke- may indicate that the preparations had been car- ried out in secret. The word iˇc. o-kom means ‘all without exception’ (kom ‘all’). The verb awka-ny-pe- means ‘to rise in rebellion against someone’, ‘to riot against someone’; it is derived from awka- ‘to rebel’, ‘to rise’. For the interpretation of the element -ny-pe-, the following option is the most likely: -ny- can be a euphonic element which is often found at the division of compounds before -k- and -p- (as in tofk-ny-pra-m- ‘to spit upwards’); in that case pe-may be identified as the verb ‘to see’. There are two more derived verbs which contain -ny-pe-, ilyku-ny-pe- (from ilyku- ‘to become an- gry’) and lyaθk-ny-pe- (from lyaθk- ‘to become sad’) both meaning ‘to scold’ (Smeets 1989: 66).

8. wne werk-l-pa-rke-y θŋŋupupewen.ˇce loŋko nekulmanyŋulu mapu y loŋko mew forowe mle-lu n iˇc.r-a-m awka-n tfa-ˇci ŋulu mapu y mewcum- ˇ ŋe-ˇci n iˇc.r-m-npupewen.ˇce loŋko arxentina mew. first send-CA-H-SD-3.ID word PL Pehuenche chief Neculma˜nwest country chief OC Boroa be.there-AG 3P be.equal-F-GR rebel-IF this-AJ west country OC act.how-PS-AJ 3P be.equal-CA-IF PL Pehuenche chief Argentina OC The first to send word over here were the Pehuenche chiefs in a message to the Chilean chief Neculma˜n, who resided in Boroa, calling on him to prepare an uprising in Chile that would match the preparations of the Pehuenche chiefs in Argentina.

The intransitive/transitive verb pair c.ˇr- ‘to be equal’ and c.ˇr-m- ‘to make equal’, ‘to compensate’ have the connotation of plotting and arranging. Augusta (1966: 252) translates c.ˇr-m θuŋu as ‘stratagem’ or ‘trick’. 542 5 The Araucanian Sphere

9. ka werk-le-rke-y pron fweŋŋnnyi tunt e.n mew nyi nie-a-l tfa-ˇci ˆ malon fily-ple. further send-ST-SD-3.ID knot thread 3.PL 3P how.much OC 3P hold-F-SN this-AJ raid every-side Furthermore, they had sent a knotted thread establishing the date when this general rebellion was to take place.

The word ka ‘other’ can further be interpreted as ‘also’, ‘furthermore’. The expression tunt e(n) means ‘how much’, ‘how big’, etc.; when followed by mew,itmeans ‘when’. ˆ The expression fily-ple ‘everywhere’ has been translated as ‘general’ here. The ‘knotted thread’ pron fw refers to the Araucanian equivalent of the Peruvian quipu.

10. aku-lu fey-ˇci werken pewen.ˇce tuw-lu, fey wl-pa-y θŋŋu: arrive-AG that-AJ messenger Pehuenche come.from-AG he/she/it give-H-3.ID word When the messenger arrived, coming from the Pehuenche, he brought the following news.

The noun werken ‘messenger’ is derived from werk- ‘to send’. The verb tuw- means ‘to proceed from’; its complement is always the place of origin; a relation with tu- ‘to get’ is doubtful. Mapuche has two verbs ‘to give’, elu- and wl-: with the former object markers are interpreted as recipients, whereas with the latter object markers are interpreted as real objects and no recipient can be expressed. We interpret fey wl-pa-y θŋu as: ‘This is the message he came to deliver.’

11. “werk-ŋe-n”, pi-pa-y. send-PS-1.SG.ID say-H-3.ID “I was sent,” he came to tell. 12. “werk-e-n-ew chayweke loŋko, kanyamunkura loŋko, kafoyely loŋko, kaaŋkaˇc.rloŋko. send-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV Chaihueque chief and Namuncura chief and Foyel chief and Ancatrir chief “I was sent by chief Chaihueque, chief Namuncura, chief Foyel and chief Ancatrir.

These are names of Argentinian caciques.41 The spelling of Namuncura is a bit odd, as the etymology of this name is doubtlessnamu n kura ‘leg of stone’.

41 See Vignati (1942–6) for historical data regarding some of these indigenous leaders. 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 543

13. ‘pe-lel-a-e-n nyipuŋulu loŋko’ pi-e-n-ew nyipuloŋko. see-BN-F-I-1.SG.ID 1P.SG PL west chief say-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV 1P.SG PL chief My chiefs said to me: ‘You will see for me the chiefs of Chile.’

This sentence contains two instances of the possessive modifier which do not seem to have a clear possessive function; as an alternative, the first nyi could be interpreted as ‘his’, ‘their’, but this would make little sense; imaginably, a rhetorical device or a marker of respect is involved. The Spanish translation speaks of ‘the’, not ‘my’ Chilean chiefs. Note also the use of the singular in pe-lel-a-e-n, although four chiefs are involved.

14. fey mew kpa-n. that OC come-1.SG.ID Therefore I have come. 15. ‘mle-y may pu wiŋka, kom may awka-ny-pe-a-fi-yiny’ pi-∅ may nyiloŋko. be.there-3.ID yes PL non.Indian all yes revolt-EU-see-F-3O-1. PL.ID say-3.ID yes 1P.SG chief ‘Asweknow well, there are Huincas here; we all intend to rise against them, don’t we?’, so my chief said.

The primary meaning of may is ‘yes’; as a particle, it is used to provoke the approval of the addressee (cf. Smeets 1989: 436–7). After a root ending in -i- (pi-), the third-person indicative suffix -y is often not pronounced.

16. ‘pi-me-a-fi-∅-mi fey-ˇci ŋulu loŋko’, pi-ŋe-n. say-TH-F-3O-ID-2.SG that-AJ west chief say-PS-1.SG.ID Iwas told: ‘You will go and say it to those Chilean chiefs.’

The indicative suffix -y- is not pronounced after the suffix -fi-.

17. ‘, pi-ke-yiny. we yes1P.PL Pehuenche-CV-IF end-CA-F-3O-1.PL.ID this-AJ PL non.Indian say-CU-1.PL.ID ‘, that is what we intend to do.

The element -ŋe-n, infinitive of the copula verbaliser (originally ‘to be’), is used here to characterise the Pehuenche as a collectivity; this collectivity is viewed as if it were ‘owned’ by the Pehuenche, hence the possessive modifier. The transitive verb ap-m- ‘to bring to an end’ is correlated to intransitive af- ‘to come to an end’. The use of -ke-in 544 5 The Araucanian Sphere pi-ke-yiny points at a firm and constant intention; in addition to ‘to say’, pi- also has the meaning ‘to want’.

18.

The suffix -l- is here interpreted as a benefactive, in spite of the rather negative connotation. Alternatively, it may be an instance of a ‘more involved object’ marker, as described by Smeets (1989: 377–9).

20. fey mew kinye-w-n nie-a-yiny awka-n θŋŋu>’”. that OC one-V.RF-IFhave-F-1.PL.ID revolt-IF thing So united we shall have a war at hand.>’”

The reflexive suffix -(u)w- here takes the function of a verbaliser, as it often does. The expression kinye-w-n is used adverbially ‘together’, ‘in unity’. For the interpretation of awka-n θŋu compare malon θŋu in sentence 4.

5.2 The Allentiac language A reasonable amount of documentation exists on the Huarpean languages Allentiac and Millcayac. All of it is due to Luis de Valdivia, who also authored the first grammar of the Araucanian language. Two samples of the original edition of Valdivia’s work on Allentiac, containing a ‘doctrina’, a catechism with instructions for confession, a grammar and a Spanish–Allentiac word list (1607) were preserved until the twentieth century, one in Lima (subsequently lost) and one in the National Library at Madrid. The work was re-edited by Medina in 1894 and discussed in Mitre (1909–1910, volume I). Mitre expanded the vocabulary with an Allentiac–Spanish word list and altered the original spelling in several respects, substituting the symbol j for Valdivia’s on the (unmotivated) assumption that the latter represented a velar fricative, rather than a palatal sibilant.42 Valdivia’s work on Millcayac grammar remained lost for a long time, leading to doubt as to whether it had ever been published, until in 1938 a copy of it was discovered in the University Library of Cuzco by M´arquez Miranda. He had it photographed by the Cuzco photographer Chambi and published its contents (M´arquez Miranda 1943). We will give an impression here of Allentiac.

42 The alternative use of the forms acasllahue and acaxllahue for ‘virgin’ in Valdivia’s Allentiac catechism speaks in favour of a (palatal) sibilant interpretation for . The alternation of x and ch in the verbal morphophonemics points in the same direction. 5.2 The Allentiac language 545

The absence of explanation concerning the pronunciation of Valdivia’ssymbols makes it a hazardous task to reconstruct the Allentiac sound system. On the morphological and syntactic level a fuller picture of the language may eventually be obtained by a thorough analysis of the religious texts that accompany the grammar (a first attempt is Bixio 1993). The Allentiac language apparently had a six-vowel system, similar to that in Araucanian. Valdivia uses the symbol or for the sixth vowel, which may have been an unrounded high back or central vowel, as in chal`u [ˇcal]43 ‘arrow’. It is possible that Valdivia did not always write the sixth vowel, which could explain the presence of occasional word-initial consonant clusters, e.g. in pxota [p()ˇsota] ‘girl’ and qleu [k()lew] ‘on top of’. In one case both spellings are found: qtec and q`utec [k()tek] ‘fire’. To be noticed is the frequent occurrence of what was apparently a syllabic lateral, as in lpu`u [lpu] ‘finger’. The language had a series of sibilants or assibilated affricates, ˚ of which the exact value can only be guessed on the basis of the information given by Valdivia. They are written , , and , respectively. The symbol is limited in its distribution. It is found at the end of a syllable, usually before another consonant (e.g. in taytayes-nen ‘I vanquish’), and in the word huss´u [hus] ‘ostrich’.44 Examples of , and are xapi [ˇsapi] ‘death’, hueze [weze] ‘leg’ and zhuc˜na [ˇzuknya] ‘frog’. The interpretation of the symbols and as voiced fricatives ([z], [ˇz]) is tentative and, in the case of , partly based on the fact that there seems to have been an opposition between and in intervocalic position. In other positions may have had the value [s]. Allentiac is presented by Valdivia as an agglutinating, dominantly suffixing language. It differs from Araucanian in having a well-developed set of case markers and post- positions (e.g. -ta locative; -tati causal; -tayag beneficiary; -ye dative; -yen instrumental; -ymen comitative). Person of possessor is indicated by adding the genitive case marker -(e)ch or -(i)ch to the personal pronouns cu ‘I’, ca ‘you’ and ep ‘he/she/it’, viz. cu-ch ‘my’, ca-ch ‘your’, ep-ech ‘his’. The same holds for the corresponding plural forms, which are obtained by adding -cha to the personal pronouns, e.g. ep-cha ‘they’, ep-cha-ch ‘their’. However, in pronouns associated with forms of the verbal paradigm the plural marker is noted as -chu, rather than -cha (cu-chu, ca-chu, ep-chu). No inclusive–exclusive plural

43 Self-evidently, the phonetic transcriptions proposed in this paragraph are merely suggestive. The combination gu can be interpreted as [w] before a, o, u; before i and e, the combination hu serves that purpose. The symbol g alone and the combination gu before e and i may have referred to a voiced velar stop, but more likely to a voiced velar fricative. The voiceless velar stop [k] is written qu before e and i, q before silent u` or u´, and c elsewhere. The symbols ch, ll and n˜ were almost certainly as in Spanish. 44 The form huss´u (with final u´)isexplicitly mentioned in Mitre (1909, I: 374), whereas Medina’s edition has hussu.Weassume that in this case Mitre’s observation is correct because of his having had direct access to the original edition, notwithstanding the fact that the word list in Medina’s edition is a lot more trustworthy than Mitre’s. 546 5 The Araucanian Sphere

Table 5.4 Unmarked verbal paradigm in Allentiac

quillet- ‘to love’

1 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-nen ‘I love, want.’ plur. quillet-c-a-c-nen ‘We love, want.’ 2 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-npen ‘You (sing.) love, want.’ plur. quillet-c-a-m-ne-c-pen ‘You (plur.) love, want.’ 3 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-na ‘He/she loves, wants.’ plur. quillet-c-a-m-na ‘They love, want.’

distinction has been recorded. Plural of substantives is indicated by means of the element guiam, e.g. in pia guiam ‘fathers’. The verbal morphology of the Allentiac verb appears to be quite rich. Valdivia of- fers an overview of the endings referring to person-of-subject, tense, mood, voice, interrogation, nominalisation and subordination. There is also evidence of some deriva- tional morphology which is not described systematically. The root of Valdivia’s model verb quillet- ‘to love’, ‘to want’ is followed by a lexical extension -(e)c- in all of its paradigms except for the future tense and its derivates. This extension is found with a number of other verbs as well. Its function remains unexplained. The per- sonal endings are preceded by a thematic vowel -a-,which can be left out as a re- sult of morphophonemic adaptations (see below). In the endings the pluralising el- ements -c- (for first and second person) and -m- (for second and third person) can be recognised. The unmarked paradigm (present or preterit) of quillet-isshown in table 5.4. The same endings are found in the imperfect or habitual past, where an element -yalt- is inserted after -(e)c-: quillet-ec-yalt-a-nen ‘I used to love, want’. Future is indicated by the element -ep-(-ep-m- for the plain future), with elimination of the -(e)c- extension: quillet-ep-m-a-nen ‘I shall love, want’. Verb roots which do not have the -(e)c- extension in their paradigms may be subject to morphophonemic adaptations, such as the loss of the thematic vowel a and other modifications, e.g. pacax-nen ‘I remove’, but pacach-a-npen ‘you remove’. The endings of the imperative and interrogative paradigms differ considerably from their affirmative counterparts. An example of the unmarked tense of the interrogative is given in table 5.5. Negation is indicated by means of a free element naha,45 as in naha quillet-c-a-nen ‘I don’t want’, but for the imperative there are special negative markers, as can be seen

45 The negative marker naha is sometimes found as a prefix or proclitic na-, for instance, in na-cu-ymen ‘without me’ (cu ‘I’, -ymen ‘with’). 5.2 The Allentiac language 547

Table 5.5 Interrogative verbal paradigm in Allentiac

quillet-

1 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-lte ‘Do I love, want?’ plur. quillet-c-a-c-lte ‘Do we love, want?’ 2 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-n ‘Do you (sing.) love, want?’ plur. quillet-c-a-m-ne ‘Do you (plur.) love, want?’ 3 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-nte ‘Does he/she love, want?’ plur. quillet-c-a-m-te ‘Do they love, want?’

in (107) and (108):

(107) quillet-ec-gua, quillet-ec-xec love-VE-2S.IM ‘Love!’ (108) quillet-ec uche love-VE 2S.IM.NE ‘Don’t love!’

In some parts of the verbal paradigm only number, not person, is morphologically distinguished, as in the subordinative form called gerundio de ablativo by Valdivia (109):

(109) quillet-ec-ma-ntista love-VE-SU-SU ‘When I/you/he/she wants ...’ quillet-ec-ma-m-nista love-VE-SU-PL-SU ‘When we/you (plural)/they want ...’

Active participles are formed by adding the elements yag ‘this’ or an-tichan to the verb stem, passive participles by adding el-tichan. According to Valdivia, the el-tichan nominalisation can serve as the basis for a passive construction in combination with the verb m(a)- ‘to be’, but he also mentions an alternative construction consisting of the active form preceded by the element quemmec.

(110) quillet-ec el-tichan m-a-npen love-VE PS-N be-TV-2S ‘You are loved.’ 548 5 The Araucanian Sphere

(111) quemmec quillet-c-a-npen PS love-VE-TV-2S ‘You are loved.’ The verbal transitions (object marking) are indicated by means of special pronominal elements which precede the verb root and which are inserted between the pronominal subject (if any) and the verb root itself. The first-person singular object marker is either cu-ye (pronoun ‘I’ + dative case), or in a contracted form que; its plural counterpart is either quex, xque,orcuchanen. The second-person-singular object marker is ca-ye (pronoun ‘you’ + dative case); its plural counterpart is either cax, xca or xcaummi. The third-person object marker is pu or p`u for the singular, and either pux or p`ux,orxpu or xp`u for the plural. In the transition 1S-2O the object marker can either precede the verb, or be infixed, so that we have the following alternatives:

(112) cu ca-ye quillet-c-a-nen Iyou-DA love-VE-TV-1S ‘I love you (singular).’ (113) quillet-ec-ca-nen love-VE-2O-1S ‘I love you (singular).’

The transition 2S-1O can be expressed in two ways, either as described above, or by special endings:

(114) ca-chu que quillet-c-a-m-ne-c-pen you-PL 1.SG.DA love-VE-TV-PL-2S-PL-2S ‘You (plural) love me.’ (115) ca-chu quillet-ec-quete you-PL love-VE-2S.PL.1O.SG ‘You (plural) love me.’

Reflexivity is indicated by means of the root ychacat [iˇcakat] ‘self’, which can be used with a pronoun, as in cu ychacat ‘I myself’. Alternatively, it can be infixed in the verb (before the extension, if any).

(116) Pedro quillet-ychacat-c-a-na Pedro love-RF-VE-TV-3S ‘Pedro loves himself.’

Valdivia’s Allentiac lexicon contains very few terms referring to nature and envi- ronment. Mitre (1909, I: 349) attributes this to the fact that Valdivia’s consultants were emigrated Huarpeans who had preferred the relative security of Spanish rule in Chile 5.2 The Allentiac language 549 to their original habitat, surrounded as it was by warlike neighbours. The language has a decimal system of numerals: lcaa ‘one’, yemen ‘two’, ltun ‘three’, tut ‘four’, horoc ‘five’, zhillca ‘six’, tucum ‘ten’; the numbers for ‘seven’, ‘eight’ and ‘nine’ are com- pounds, respectively, yemen-qlu, ltun-qleu, tut-qleu. The word for ‘hundred’ is pataka, a loan from Aymara or Mapuche. Interesting is the shape of colour terms; they all con- sist of a reduplicated element followed by the ending -niag: hom=hom-niag ‘black’, zas=zas-niag ‘red’. Valdivia’s Allentiac lexicon contains a few loan words, such as, y˜naca ‘princess’ (Aymara inyaqa ‘young lady’), mita ‘time’, ‘turn’ (Quechua mit’a), mucha-pia-nen ‘I kiss’ (Quechua muˇc’a- ‘to kiss’) and quillca-tau-nen ‘I write’ (Quechua qilyqa- ‘to write’). The functions of the elements -pia- and -tau-inthe last two examples are not known; they may reflect either cases of derivation, or compounds containing the roots pia ‘father’ (or another element yet to be identified) and tau- ‘to put’. Interesting cases are the word for ‘house’ ut(u), reminiscent of Aymaran uta, and the word for ‘bread’ kupi. Mitre (1909, I: 382) affirms that this is an arbitrary, transcultural translation of Valdivia, because kupi referred to a staple food of the Huarpeans, the dried roots of reed-plants from the lakes. The resemblance with Mapuche kofke ‘bread’ is noteworthy. 6

The languages of Tierra del Fuego

On Tierra del Fuego, the archipelagos surrounding it and the neighbouring mainland, Patagonia, nine indigenous languages were spoken, of which only a few have survived to the present day. With respect to the peoples of Tierra del Fuego, a distinction is made traditionally between the canoe nomads, including the Chono, the Kawesqar and the Yahgan, and the foot nomads, including the Haush and the Selknam. In the latter group the G¨un¨una K¨une, the Tehuelche and the Tehues or Teushen are also included (Clairis 1985). As Guyot (1968) notes, the area of Tierra del Fuego had already been visited by eighty- one exploratory expeditions by the time the HMS Beagle, carrying Charles Darwin, passed through the area. Different visitors projected different images onto the nomadic groups they encountered. Thus Darwin writes: ‘The language of these people, according to our notions, scarcely deserves to be called articulate’ ([1906] 1983: 195). The Fuegians could be seen as a decidedly lower step in human development, in his perception. It was against this view that Thomas Bridges, a missionary in the area from 1869 to 1887 on behalf of the South American Missionary Society, argued with his mas- sive 30,000-word Yahgan–English dictionary. On the basis of it he is quoted by Guyot (1968) as having written in an Argentinian newspaper that ‘Incredible though it may seem, the language of one of the poorest tribes, without literature, nor poetry, nor songs, nor science, has nonetheless, owing to its structure and its functions, a list of words which surpasses that of tribes much more evolved with respect to their art and the satisfaction of their needs’ (translated from French in Guyot 1968: 8). The large speculative and impressionistic literature on these groups has not automatically led to very thorough descriptions and profound analyses, however. Here we try to give a sketch of some of the linguistic properties of the languages involved, building on the recent careful historical, descriptive and comparative work of scholars such as Casamiquela, Clairis, Fern´andez Garay and Najlis, and on the monumental earlier studies of Bridges, Cooper and Gusinde, among others. Cooper (1946a) tries to give a general description of the traditional cultures of Tierra del Fuego, partly on the basis of accounts of travellers who came into contact with 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 551

) † ( TEUSHEN(†) O N O H C C ARGENTINA

TEHUELCHE

H

C h ico R.

I

Puerto Edén K

A L

W TEHUELCHE E

S

Q

A E

R

Punta Arenas SELK'NAM(†) HAUSH(†) Ushuaia

YAHGAN

Map 13 The languages of Tierra del Fuego these generally nomadic groups. The people living at this end-point of the world had gathering economies; cultivated plants were only found in the north, at the margins of the Araucanian Sphere. Their only domestic animals were the dog and – for some groups – the horse. Dogs were for some groups only adopted in the colonial period, and horses came in during the eighteenth century. They had moveable shelters, and no raised beds or . Their weapons were made of stone, wood or bone. Metal weapons and tools were introduced after contacts with Europeans. The canoe nomads lived mainly on seals, fish and shellfish; the pedestrian nomads hunted land animals such as the guanaco (a relative of the llama) and the (an ostrich-like creature). On the Atlantic 552 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego side the emphasis was on land hunting, while on the Pacific side the early inhabitants lived from fishing and sea hunting, supplemented by shellfish gathering and hunting of sea birds (Rivera 1999: 754). The area shows 6,000 years of continuous occupation, made possible by low population density and enormous maritime resources (Rivera 1999: 756). The people lived in well-organised families and monogamy was prevalent. Social organisation was in terms of bands, without clearly distinct chiefs, corresponding perhaps to extended families. Land-tenure was organised along the lines of the family hunting- ground system. When food was becoming scarce in one place, the family or band would move on to a different area and settle temporarily. There is no evidence of cannibalism, and people held theistic or shamanistic beliefs. We will now turn to a brief description of the distribution of the different language groups in the area.

6.1 The languages and their distribution A schematic representation of the traditional areas of the Fuegian languages is given on the map at the beginning of this chapter. Turning counter-clockwise along the coast of Chile, the northernmost group is the Chono or Aksan´as (the Kawesqar word for ‘man’), now extinct, who lived in the area from the Corcovado Gulf, south of Chilo´e, to the Gulf of Pe˜nas. Cooper (1917) has carefully summarised all that can be gathered from accounts of the Chono, from Jesuit missionaries in 1612 to an English ship captain in 1875. Canoe nomads, they had adopted a few Araucanian elements (Cooper 1946b): sporadic gardening (e.g. potatoes) and herding, the polished stone ax and the plank boat (dalca). Below we will briefly present the available data about possible numbers of Chono speakers. Cooper (1917) concludes from a survey of the ways the language of the Chono is described in the sources, including accounts of interpreting etc., that Chono was cer- tainly distinct from Mapuche and Tehuelche, and more probably than not also from Kawesqar. An independent Chono group figured already in Chamberlain’s classification of 1913. Clairis (1985) bristles at the idea of speaking of a language that we know al- most nothing about, except for some ethnohistorical accounts. Here we will be more audacious and try to sift through the information there is, particularly the eighteenth- century catechism found in Rome archives and published by Bausani (1975), with a tentative interpretation. A similar attempt has been undertaken by Viegas Barros (to appear a). In table 6.1 we give the correspondences between lexical elements tenta- tively identified by Bausani and their equivalents in the data presented by Skottsberg (1913) and Clairis (1985). Skottsberg claimed to have discovered a group of ‘West Patagonian Canoe Indians’ distinct from the Kawesqar and presumably identical to the Chono. The word lists presented suggest that this is not the case, however. On 6.1 The languages and their distribution 553

Table 6.1 The relation between putative Chono words identified by Bausani (1975) and their possible equivalents in the Alacalufan materials of Skottsberg (1913) and Clairis (1987) (supplemented by Viegas Barros 1990)

Bausani* Skottsberg Clairis sky acha arrx h acaqsta ‘warm, good weather’ ac’ayes ‘sun’ father sapc´ ˇıˇca:r cecar man yemaakˇ ´ seˇs aqsenes, aqsanas yema ‘white man, Chilean’ three tas t´aw-kl(k) tow, taw ‘other’, wokst´ow uklk-at-tawɹlk ‘three’ (Aguilera 1978) good lam l´a:yip layep, layeq yes joaylo ´ ayaw believe [credere] jo-cau kstiˇsy ‘speak’ afsaqhas ‘speak’ son cot ´ıkyawt ‘baby’ eyxyol ‘son’ one ue˜¨ nec t´akso taqso d´akuduk no yamchiu t´axli, kyip qyep, qyeloq

* The Bausani spellings are the original ones.

the whole the words given by Skottsberg correspond to those presented by Clairis. Only rarely do the words given by Bausani correspond directly with those provided by Clairis and Skottsberg, although Viegas Barros (to appear a) argues that 45 per cent of the Chono lexical and grammatical elements resemble those of Kawesqar and/or Yahgan. The Kawesqar (also referred to as Qawasqar) or Alacaluf traditionally occupied the territory from the Gulf of Pe˜nas to the islands west of Tierra del Fuego, and lived mostly from fishing, like the Chono. Bird (1946) estimates that there may have been maximally a few thousand Kawesqar at the time of first contact; according to Clairis (1985) there were forty-seven Kawesqar left in 1972, living on the bay of Puerto Eden on the east coast of Wellington Island. The 1984 census gives twenty-eight speak- ers. There was some original confusion about this language. Clairis (1985) criticised Loukotka for distinguishing two linguistic isolates among the sea nomads who in- habited the southern Chilean archipelago between Chilo´e and Tierra del Fuego. Fol- lowing Hammerly Dupuy (1947), Loukotka recognised a separate group, Aksan´as or Kaueskar, that would have been different from Alacaluf. Clairis observes that Qawasqar (Kaueskar) is the autodenomination of the Alacaluf, whereas Aksan´as means ‘man (male)’ in their language. It appears from the listing of languages included in Loukotka’s Aksan´as group that he attributed some of the ethnonyms referring to the Alacaluf to the 554 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego extinct Chono or Guaiteca Indians, who lived in the province of Ais´en, north of the Alacaluf. Aguilera (1978) and Clairis (1987) are the most recent descriptions of the language, and particularly Aguilera’s work (e.g. 1988, 1997, 1999) provides reliable data. Viegas Barros (1990) has done a comparative analysis of all available sources and given a dialectological survey of the language, concluding that there are three recognisably distinct varieties: northern, central and southern Kawesqar. The Yahgan (also Yagan) or Yamana occupied the southern coast of Tierra del Fuego and the archipelago surrounding it, extending to Cape Horn. While there were still between 2,500 and 3,000 Yahgan in 1875 (Cooper 1946c), Clairis (1985) mentions six to eight elderly speakers of Yahgan living on Navarino island. There were two in 1994. The principal traditional sources on Yahgan are Thomas Bridges, who produced a large dictionary in 1879 (1933) and wrote a set of notes (1894), Adam (1884–5), and Gusinde (1937). Golbert de Goodbar (1977, 1978) presents glossed sentences with brief grammatical descriptions. In contrast with these three groups, that all represent canoe nomads, the Selknam or Ona were a land people. The Selknam were also much taller than the Chono, Kawesqar and Yahgan, averaging six feet or 1.80 cm. Their traditional habitat was the northern and central part of the island of Tierra del Fuego proper (Cooper 1946d). There was only one (older) person who could still speak the language in the 1980s, according to Clairis (1985), while Najlis (1973, 1975) mentions several speakers. The Selknam were a hunting nation, living mainly on guanaco meat. Of the Haush or Manekenkn the last speakers died around 1920; they lived on the east- ern point of the island of Tierra del Fuego, and shared their lifestyle with the Selknam. Guyot (1968: 12) suggests that they were earlier settlers than the Selknam, and were subsequently pushed to the southeast. It is even possible that the Haush in turn had taken over the island from the Yahgan. In Patagonia, on the continent proper, the people have been designated traditionally as Patagones or Tehuelche. Clairis (1985), following Casamiquela, divides the Patagones into four groups. The northernmost group died out early in the nineteenth century, and nothing is known about their language. The group slightly to the south is known as G¨un¨una K¨une, and also as Gennaken and Pampa. The last speaker of their language, referred to as G¨unun ¨ aYajich [gnnayaxcˇ], died in 1960, and Casamiquela (1983) provides a very useful sketch of it. The group known as Tehues or Teushen, yet further to the south, also died out in recent history. Some early twentieth-century materials have been published by Lehmann- Nitsche (1913). The one group still surviving is called Aonek’enk or Tehuelche (as mentioned above, also the name for all the indigenous groups of continental Patagonia). According to Clairis (1985) about thirty members of the group are alive (more recent 6.2 Ethnohistory 555

Table 6.2 Historical demographic data for the canoe nomads (summarised)

Chono Kawesqar Yahgan

until 1850 21 fam. 4,000 2,900 1875 1 fam 2,500+ 1900 130–945 1925 150–400 50 1950 100 40 1985 – 28 6–8

Table 6.3 Historical demographic data for the hunter nomads (summarised)

Selknam Haush G¨un¨una K¨une Tehues Tehuelche until 1850 3,600 300 some 500–600 9,000–10,000 1875 2,000 2,000–6,000 1900 <1,500 <300 1925 70–100 1–3 10–12 1950 20 40 1975 2–3 100 1985 1 – – – 29

estimates give 200), of whom three to four are reasonably fluent speakers. Fern´andez Garay has provided a detailed description of this language (1993a, b, 1995, 1998c). G¨un¨una Yajich is the sole documented member of the northern branch of the Chonan family. The proportion of common vocabulary between G¨un¨una Yajich and Tehuelche does not exceed 11 per cent (Clairis 1985).

6.2 Ethnohistory The contact with Europeans was disastrous for the indigenous peoples of Tierra del Fuego. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 give an overview of the available population data, culled from Cooper (1917, 1946a, b, c, d), Bird (1946), Guyot (1968), Najlis (1973) and Clairis (1985). While these tables give a false sense of precision, based as they are on many differ- ent sources of various types, the overall pattern presented is clear. Particularly in the final part of the nineteenth century, the indigenous populations declined rapidly. In the case of the canoe nomads, who originally lived in rather inaccessible and undesirable surroundings (from the point of view of colonists), the causes of decline were new conta- gious respiratory diseases, measles and smallpox. The contagion was aggravated by the 556 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego colonial and missionary policy of concentrating these originally nomadic and dispersed peoples on certain sites. Wilbert and Simoneau (1984: 1–3) and Fern´andez Garay (1989a) outline several phases in the post-Columbian history of the Patagones. Originally a strong and numerous people, they had only incidental contacts with Europeans from 1520 until the eighteenth century, when the Jesuits started missions. The Patagones adopted horses and other cultural elements of either Spanish or Mapuche origin, and became a group of hunters on horseback. Horses changed their lifestyle drastically, as they had in the case of the Plains Indians in North America. In the second half of the eighteenth century, the Mapuche started taking over the Tehuelche territories, and after 1800 they defeated the Tehuelche. Afterwards came the attempted extermination campaigns by white settlers, whowanted the lands of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. The decisive wars against the land nomads were the Pampa Wars, waged by the Argentinian army against the Mapuche and Patagones from 1879 to 1883. After 1883 Indian resistance was broken, and white colonisation entered into full swing. From 1898 onward several reserves were created, most of which were reclaimed again by the government in the 1960s, and two of which remained (Fern´andez Garay 1989a). These reserves were not large enough for the indigenous population to continue its original way of life as hunters, and the reserve inhabitants were forced to seek low-paying jobs as farm-hands on neighbouring estates. As to their current social position and cultural function, it is clear that by now the languages have a quite marginal function, inasmuch as they have survived at all.

6.3 Problems in classification Quite aside from problems of classification, a problem has been that of the identification of the different languages and ethnic groups. The major efforts are by Lehmann-Nitsche, Cooper, Casamiquela and Clairis, and the results are by no means conclusive. The consensus so far is that the languages of the hunter nomads – Selknam, Haush, G¨un¨una Yajich, Teushen and Tehuelche – are related (and together classified as the Chonan family) and share between 10 and 55 per cent of their (core?) vocabulary, depending on their geographical distance. Little is known yet about relations between the languages of the canoe nomads, although Key and Clairis (1978) brought forward the possibility of a genetic relationship between Kawesqar and the Chonan languages, a hypothesis which awaits further testing. Viegas Barros (1998, to appear a) is exploring the possibility that Chono, Kawesqar and Yahgan are all related. More systematic work in this area is needed. Clairis (personal communication 1988) found Y´amana (Yahgan) genetically more isolated than any other language of the region. To what extent the sharing of vocabulary between the languages of Tierra del Fuego is indicative of a genetic relationship and to what extent it is due to borrowing is not dis- cussed. A problem is that we have only a few reliable grammatical descriptions, and that 6.3 Problems in classification 557 these descriptions are done in maximally divergent grammatical traditions. Nonetheless, there are some morpheme correspondences in the personal inflection system:

(1) Selknam G¨un¨una Yajich 1 pers. sing. y- y- 2 pers. sing. m- m-

For Selknam these forms are straightforward and given as such by Najlis (1973: 21). Consider, for instance, the pronoun system and the personal prefixes (first and second persons singular):

(2) a. yah mah ‘I’ ‘you’ b. y-ʔɔʔɔly m-ʔɔʔɔly ‘my clothes’ ‘your clothes’ c. y-sɔhymxε:n mer xoʔεʔεn m-sɔhymxε:n mer xoʔεʔεn 1O.SG-cured DT.PX witch- 2O.SG-cured DT.PX witch- doctor doctor ‘The (female) witch-doctor cured ‘The (female) witch-doctor cured me.’ you.’

For Gun¨ ¨ una Yajich, however, the matter is slightly more complicated. We find the m- frequently occurring in the subject and object inflection paradigms and it is present in the personal pronoun for ‘you’. For the first person we find y, also -¸s, and cˇ,insome forms:

(3) a. pronouns (Casamiquela 1983: 51): 12 3 koa kmawsa¸ ¸ s singular ksaw¸ kmaw waw dual ksan¸ kmansa¸ ¸ s plural b. most frequent subject markers (Casamiquela 1983: 69): 12 3 kuˇca- mu- na-/ku-/wa- singular ska- mu- kuwu- dual naka- kma- ka-/wa- plural c. object marking (Casamiquela 1983: 80–1): 12 3 -ya -ma -a singular -yup -mup -p dual -s¸n-mn-n plural 558 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

The fact that the object inflection is the most regular, and that there is no clear alternative, makes it more plausible to reconstruct -y for G¨un¨una Yajich.This said and done, however, it is hard to find other direct evidence for a genetic relationship between the two languages in specific grammatical morphemes. Wewill consider other possible resemblances below. Before going on, it may be worthwhile pointing out that for the other languages, the first- and second-person elements do not appear to correspond directly, although there is some possible resemblance among the second persons:

(4) Chono Kawesqar Yahgan 1 pers. sing. (?) ce ha-, hey ∼ hay 2 pers. sing. te- (?) caw s-, sa

6.4 Linguistic features Since some of the Tierra del Fuego languages have been described only partially, some not at all, it is difficult to give a detailed picture of their linguistic characteristics. We will try to give some idea of the typological features of the languages involved, as far as these can be reconstructed from the published sources, and then describe one language, Yahgan, in slightly more detail. Given that we have several sources for Yahgan, it is not surprising that the evidence is somewhat contradictory. We return to this in much more detail below. However, we begin by first looking at the languages of the Chonan family, then at Chono and Kawesqar, and finally we turn to Yahgan. The amount and types of information available on the languages of Tierra del Fuego differ widely, and therefore it is difficult to compare them typologically. We will begin by looking at the sound systems of the languages involved, then turn to their basic morphological patterns and categories, and conclude by describing basic word-order patterns. In a summarising section we give a comparative sketch of the phonological characteristics of these languages.

6.4.1 The Chonan languages Of the Chonan languages, some information is available on Selknam (Najlis 1973), G¨un¨una Yajich (Casamiquela 1983) and Tehuelche (Fern´andez Garay 1998c). Selknam has a highly articulated consonantal system, and a relatively simple vowel system, rep- resented in table 6.4. In Najlis’s analysis (1973: 100), vowels followed by h are both lengthened and lowered; by consequence, V: in Viegas Barros (1993) corresponds to Najlis’s Vh. Selknam syllables can be quite complex, as in sq’¸ ɔht’ε ‘to gather’ and haʔmqn [haʔmxqn] ‘coast’ (Najlis 1973: 95). Viegas Barros (1993) shows that the alternation between /r/ and /l/ in Selknam sometimes reflects free variation (5a), sometimes geographical variation (5b) or even 6.4 Linguistic features 559

Table 6.4 Phoneme inventory of Selknam (based on Najlis 1973)

Labial Dental Apical Palatal Velar Uvular Laryngeal

Plain stops p tckq ˇ ʔ Glottalised stops p’ t’ k’ q’ Fricatives ssˇ ¸ sx h Nasals m n Lateral l Vibrant r Glides w y

Front Central Back

High Close e o Open εɔ Low Close a Open α

variation between different branches of the Chonan family (5c), and sometimes sound- symbolism (6):

(5) a. o:tr ∼ o:tl ‘eye’ b. ʔɔʔɔ:sr (central and southern) / ʔɔʔɔ:sl (northern) ‘forehead’ c. p’αr (Selknam) / p’ole (Tehuelche) / p’al (Haush) ‘(to be) black’

The sound-symbolic weight of the alternation /r/∼/l/ shows up in a series of minimal pairs with related meanings.

(6) a. wer ‘foam’ wel ‘saliva, phlegm’ b. ʔayruʔ ‘Kawesqar man’ ʔayleʔ ‘Yahgan man’ c. tεr ‘finger’ tel ‘little finger’ d. ur ‘peak, point’ ul ‘nose’

In the analysis of Najlis (1973), Selknam verbal roots, of which there are only a limited number, have the form (C)V. There are six prefixes, which are inflectional and may actually be proclitics. They all have the form C-. The number of suffixes is much larger, and they may have the forms -C, -V,-CV, -VC, or -CVC. There is vowel infixation, leading to double vowel sequences. The analysis of Viegas Barros (1993) may have consequences for Najlis’s analysis of Selknam roots, however, since what are separate morphemes in Najlis’s analysis may actually be part of the root. Most words have quite a complicated morphological structure. 560 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

In the description of Najlis (1973), Selknam is an object–verb–auxiliary (verb)– subject language, with the head noun in final position and with postpositions:

(7) yεpr t’ε:n han¸s t’elqn meat eat CU girl ‘The girl usually eats meat.’ (Najlis 1973: 15) (8) tεwr xey wεʔεʔ sɔɔ-¸s mah perhaps come can NE-DU 2.SG ‘Perhaps you cannot come.’ (Najlis 1973: 8) (9) xe-nn merconn ˇ come-AF.MS DC man ‘The man came.’ (Najlis 1973: 8)

This latter example also illustrates two other features of Selknam: a partially gender- sensitive evidential system and a complex nominal deixis system. The evidential system involves a three-way distinction: (10) a. affirmative/certitive: -nn (masculine), -εn (feminine), -n (neutral); cf. (9) b. dubitative: -¸s; cf. (8) c. surprise: -y

The deictic system involves a sequence of optional elements which refer to different semantic categories (Najlis 1973: 22–6): (11)      

There are eight positional elements: (12) han ‘displacement respective to speaker’ a ‘displacement of other’, ‘dispersion of individuals’ q’α ‘dispersion of mass’ on ‘shapeless substance’ t’am ‘fixed’ ʔay ‘vertical’ xa ‘horizontal’ pe ‘balanced’, ‘seated’

The category of plural distinguishes between ε ‘general plural’, and mεy ‘collective plural’. Distance involves three categories. (13) na ‘near speaker’ mer ‘separate from speaker but not distant’ may ‘distant but in view’ 6.4 Linguistic features 561

Five cardinal directions are distinguished:

(14) εy ‘south’ ɔɔqn ‘north’ ahwqn ‘west’ hɔɔht ‘east (heights)’ qɔɔn ‘east (plain)’

Finally, absence may be indicated. In one variety there appears to be a distinction made between the absence of an animate (hαsˇ) and an inanimate (hαy) entity. An example of a complex Selknam deictic expression is:

(15) pem εy ʔαhnaʔ seated south behind woman ‘that woman seated to the south’ (Najlis 1973: 25)

In G¨un¨una Yajich we find, according to Casamiquela (1983), something like the phoneme inventory in table 6.5. Syllables can be closed or open, but are fairly simple in structure, as words such as cqall ‘star’ and yakalcˇ ‘help’ show. It is not made clear to what extent all sounds listed are also phonemic; there is no analysis in terms of minimal pairs. In G¨un¨una Yajich there are both suffixes and prefixes or proclitics, in Casamiquela’s (1983) description. In addition, there may be compounds; compound-like structures tend to contain a linking particle a. may be iconic in nature, e.g. gap=gap ‘dust’ or hal=hal ‘fast’. G¨un¨una Yajich has postpositions:

(16) a. kawal-hna [Spanish: caballo] horse-L ‘on the horse’ (Casamiquela 1983: 58) b. puk-kan stick-IS ‘with a stick’ (Casamiquela 1983: 44)

In other respects, word-order patterns are less clear, however. There are compound-like prenominal modifiers, as in (17):

(17) atek a gamakya mountain LK chief ‘God or chief of the mountains’ (Casamiquela 1983: 42) 562 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

Table 6.5 Phoneme inventory of G¨un¨una Yajich (based on Gerzenstein’s 1968 interpretation of Casamiquela’s field data)*

Labial Dental Alveolar Apical Palatal Retroflex Velar Uvular Laryngeal affricate

Plain stops p t ccˇ ˇ c. kq ʔ Glottalised stops p’ t’ c’c’ ˇ c ˇ.’k’ Voiced stops b d g Fricatives ssˇ ¸ sxh Nasals m n Voiced laterals l ly Voiceless lateral l Vibrant rr Glides w y

Front Central Back

High i  u Mid e ə o Low a

* The consonants c.ˇ, c.ˇ’, and s¸ are characterised as ‘apico-prepalatal’ in Gerzenstein (1968). The explanation of the two affricates in Casamiquela (1983) is contradictory, but their retroflex nature is made plausible (partly on historical grounds) in Viegas Barros (1992). The spelling of c.ˇ as tr in personal names and place names (e.g. in Tretruill) suggests that Viegas’s interpretation is correct. In contrast, Casamiquela’s description of s¸ as similar to the s of Castilian Spanish suggests an apical, rather than a retroflex interpretation for this sound. Both Gerzenstein and Casamiquela report an additional distinction between open and closed high central vowels. The distinction appears to be marginal and of a low contrastive value (if any at all), so it is not taken into account in the examples.

Adjectives tend to occur postnominally, however:

(18) atek a bahai mountain LK big ‘big mountain’ (Casamiquela 1983: 43) Striking is the number of VOS sentences in the texts, as in (19), although SVO also occurs, as in (20):

(19) kcugˇ nyhca-kaˇ sc.ˇ did business-3P mouse ‘The mouse made his declaration.’ (Casamiquela 1983: 105)

(20) koanubanalsa¸ ¸ sa sc.ˇ I kill that mouse ‘I kill that mouse.’ (Casamiquela 1983: 106) 6.4 Linguistic features 563

Table 6.6 Phoneme inventory of Tehuelche (based on Fern´andez Garay 1998c)

Labial Dental Palatal Velar Uvular Laryngeal

Plain stops p tckq ˇ ʔ Glottalised stops p’ t’c’ ˇ k’ q’ Voiced stops b d g  Fricatives ssxx ˇ . Nasals m n Lateral l Vibrant r Glides w y

Front Central Back

Mid Short e o Long e: o: Low Short a Long a:

In Fern´andez Garay’s analysis, Tehuelche has the phoneme inventory given in table 6.6. This is very similar to that of Selknam. The syllable structure is complex, and con- sonants can be the nucleus of a syllable. Sequences of three consonants can oc- cur, asinkˇsxaw ‘to borrow’. Stress is initial, and there are some lexical tone dis- tinctions conditioned by the presence of a glottal stop. These may have been bor- rowed from another language, possibly G¨un¨una Yajich. Final consonant devoicing is obligatory. There is extensive suffixing in Tehuelche,but only a few verbal prefixes are mentioned. In addition there is compounding and there are possibly some cases of incipient noun incorporation, which may be due to Mapuche influence. The latter often follows an OV pattern, as can be seen from examples such as:

(21) kay-xolen-naon-k’o cloak-sew-for-thing ‘needle to sew cloaks’ (Fern´andez Garay 1998c: 136)

Case relations are expressed with affixes and enclitic postpositions. In addition, there is a complex system of person agreement markers, which show sometimes an ergative and sometimes an accusative pattern, for reasons not clear. Possibly there is an ongoing change. When both subject and object are pronominal, we generally find SOV ordering. There are also some other cases of SOV. 564 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

(22) sewlaˇ sw ˇ at’en ma:t’e-k’-ʔo Sewlaˇ S sash make-RD-DV ‘Sewlaˇ makes a sash.’ (Fern´andez Garay 1998c: 409)

In clause-second postion we often find a subject marker. In (22) it is preceded by the lexical subject, but in (23) by a time adverb:

(23) maʔ sˇ e-t-ʔo:mk’e-ˇs-k’ now S 1S.SG-3O.SG-know-PD-RD ‘Now I know her.’ (Fern´andez Garay 1998c: 342)

In imperatives, the clitics occur after the verb. Returning briefly to the issue of the relationship between Selknam, Tehuelche and G¨un¨una Yajich within the Chonan family, the very brief typological comparison made here is not conclusive. The phonological inventories of the languages are not dissimilar (especially taking into account that Casamiquela may well be making more distinc- tions than warranted by phonological oppositions), and the languages have complex morphologies involving both prefixing and suffixing. The word orders of the three lan- guages do not correspond, but this may be a matter of external syntactic influences, an issue to which we return below.

6.4.2 Chono and Kawesqar From the data available in Bausani (1975) the sound pattern of Chono can be re- constructed roughly as follows. Syllables are often closed, but need not be. There are only a few consonant clusters, but vowel clusters are frequent. From the Spanish transcription, which may of course have been highly inadequate, we arrive at the tentative sound inventory in table 6.7. The following sample forms, in the origi- nal orthography and with Bausani’s tentative translation if available, illustrate these patterns:

(24) quentaumet ‘exist’ zuquena ‘true’ jeyeulam ‘do’+‘good’ vla ‘for the sake of’ ue˜¨ nec ‘one’ jaguaitau cot ‘son’ agic sap ‘father’ eyuic

About Chono morphology, little can be said, except that it does not appear to be a highly agglutinative language. Question particles, etc, appear to be enclitic. Sometimes they are written as part of the preceding word, sometimes they appear separately. There appears to be one reduplicated form: lam=lam ‘very good’. 6.4 Linguistic features 565

Table 6.7 Tentative sound inventory of Chono (based on the materials in Bausani 1975)

Labial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal

Voiceless stops p tck ˇ Voiced stops b g Fricative f z (?)* sxh Nasal m n ny ŋ Lateral l ly Glide w y

Front Central Back

High i u Mid e o a

Diphthongs: aw, ew, ow, ay, yu, wa, we, wi

* For the symbol various possible pronunciations are imaginable: [θ], as in Mapuche, [z], [ts] or [s].

Chono, as far as it can be established from Bausani’s tentative deciphering of the catechism manuscript, was OV and had postpositions or postnominal case markers:

(25) lam jeyeu lam toquieu? good do good wish ‘beneficient and benevolent?’ (Bausani 1975: 108) (26) acha-tau met Dios? heaven-L be.there God ‘Is God in heaven?’ (Bausani 1975: 108)

Viegas Barros (to appear a) presents a highly informed listing of the lexicon and of individual endings plausibly attributable to Chono, on the basis of the text in Bausani (1975), place names and travellers’ accounts. The sounds of Kawesqar are presented in table 6.8. However, in the Kawesqar alphabet adopted in Aguilera (1984a, b) a number of sounds do not occur. These are put in brackets in the array in table 6.8. Consonant clusters may occur in both syllable-initial and -final position: awspena ‘tired’, yetapaks ‘weave’, and fte ‘fear’ illustrate this. Clairis (1987) does not give an explicit description of Kawesqar morphology, but from his description it appears there are (a) free forms; (b) suffixes; (c) enclitic 566 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

Table 6.8 Phonemes of Kawesqar (based on Clairis 1987 and Aguilera’s website http://www.kawesqar.uchile.cl 2002)*

Labial Dental Palatal Velar/Uvular Glottal

Plain stops p tc ˇ ∼ c (k) q Glottalised stops p’ t’c’ ˇ ∼ c’ k’ ∼ q’ Aspirated stops (ph)(th)(kh ∼ qh) Fricatives f s x ∼ x. h Nasals m n Lateral l Vibrant r ∼ rr Glides w y

Front Central Back

High (i) (u) Mid e o Low (æ) a

* Clairis treats the uvular and velar stops (k, q)asrealisations of a single phoneme, whereas Aguilera considers this distinction to be contrastive. Aguilera treats the aspirated stops as allophones of their non-aspirated counterparts. Clairis identifies a three-vowel system (a, e, o), whereas Aguilera recognises six vowels.

elements; (d) optionally enclitic elements (e.g. person markers). In addition, there is some reduplication (aswalaq=aswalaq ‘the day after tomorrow’), and there may be compounding. Aguilera (1997: 275) shows that the language contains a number of time and as- pect suffixes. Time is organised on a continuous axis, marked by the following verbal suffixes: (27) -seku´e ‘future’ (seqwe in Clairis 19871) -yen´ak ‘present’ -pas ‘inmediate past’ -afq´at ‘recent past’ -h´oraras ‘remote past’ -h´oyok ‘narrative or mythical past’

Kawesqar, from the sentences presented in Clairis (1987), frequently has an SOV order with a postverbal auxiliary (SOV Aux), although there is considerable word-order

1 Clairis (1987, part III) does not accept Aguilera’s distinction between velar k and uvular q and uses q in both cases. 6.4 Linguistic features 567 freedom:

(28) manteqa qyexena [cf. Spanish manteca] butter want ‘I want butter.’ (Clairis 1987: 456) (29) aswalaq ce qoteyo...yetas seqwe tomorrow 1.SG again weave F ‘Tomorrow I am going to weave again.’ (Clairis 1987: 461) (30) caw-nowaq cefalay-qhar cefalay seqwe yemase 2-C drink-N drink F boat ‘Let us go and drink wine together in the boat.’ (Clairis 1987: 464)

In addition, it seems to be postpositional:

(31) qalpon alewe [cf. Spanish galp´on] dormitory inside ‘inside the dormitory’ (Clairis 1987: 459)

Head nouns occur at the end of the nominal complex:

(32) nawareno-s qwaseq Navarino-G board ‘on board the Navarino’ (Clairis 1987: 459)

6.4.3 Yahgan We will now turn to one particular Fuegian language, Yahgan, and try to describe it in more detail, basing our descriptions on the main sources available for this language: Adam (1884–5), Bridges ([1879] 1933, 1894), Gusinde (1926, 1937), Golbert de Goodbar (1977, 1978, 1985), and Poblete and Salas (1999). Adam has reconstructed aspects of the grammar of Yahgan from various printed sources, without any fieldwork of his own. We referred to Bridges’smonumental work in the introduction to this chapter. In addition to his dictionary, he wrote a brief but illuminating grammatical sketch of the language. In his enormously detailed monograph on the Yahgan (1937), Gusinde describes the life and culture of the group in nearly 1,500 pages, but relatively little space is devoted to their language. In an earlier article (1926) he just describes the phonological system of Yahgan and the other Fuegian languages. Golbert de Goodbar worked in 1973 with the one surviving speaker of the language in Ushuaia, Argentina, someone who had grown up and lived on a Protestant mission, and whose speech was consequently influenced by English. Her articles deal with basic syntax and with verbal and nominal morphology. Poblete and Salas (1999), finally, have worked with the two surviving speakers on Navarino Island. 568 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

Table 6.9 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Golbert de Goodbar 1977 and Poblete and Salas 1999)*

Labial Dental Palatal Retroflex Velar Laryngeal

Obstruents p tc(ˇ ˇ c.)k(ʔ) Fricatives f ssx ˇ Nasals m n Lateral l Vibrants r Glides w y (ɹ)

Front Central Back

High i u Mid e ə o Low (æ) a (ɑ)

* The three consonants that only occur in Poblete and Salas are placed between parentheses. Notice that ŋin some of Golbert de Goodbar’s examples is not represented in the phoneme inventory. Her unspecified lateral l has not been included either. It does not seem to coincide with the voiceless lateral (l)ofthe earlier sources Adam and Bridges. For Golbert de Goodbar ɑ and ə are allophones of a single phoneme, the former occurring under the accent, the latter in non-accentuated position. Poblete and Salas treat the vowels æ and ə as phonemically distinct. Apparently, their fronted low vowel æ corresponds to the back low vowel ɑ of Golbert de Goodbar. All authors coincide in that the place of the accent in Yahgan is not phonologically predictable.

The sound inventory of contemporary Yahgan is presented in table 6.9, which is based on Golbert de Goodbar (1977) and Poblete and Salas (1999). The phonological description of Golbert de Goodbar (1977) and Poblete and Salas (1999) is roughly the same, except that the latter source mentions an additional distinctive vowel, as well as a glottal stop and a retroflex series (c.ˇ, ɹ). By contrast, it lacks a special lateral sound represented as l,which was noted by Golbert de Goodbar.2 In Adam (1885), however, a more complex inventory is given, particularly for the con- sonants, as shown in table 6.10. In this table a series of preaspirated glides is postulated: hw, hy, hr,inaddition to dental fricatives and voiced stops. Adam’s description cor- responds roughly to that of Bridges (1894), so it may well be that the language has been simplified phonologically in the century intervening between the earlier studies and Golbert de Goodbar’s work. The fact that Gusinde (1926) describes an intermediary

2 Golbert de Goodbar (1977) reports that it was not possible to determine the phonetic character- istics of Yahgan l, due to the fact that her consultant missed her teeth. 6.4 Linguistic features 569

Table 6.10 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Adam 1885)*

Labial Interdental Alveolar Palatal Retroflex Velar Laryngeal

Voiceless obstruents p tck ˇ Voiced obstruents b d dzˇ g Voiceless fricatives f θ sˇsxh Voiced fricatives v δ z Nasals m n ŋ Pre-aspirated nasal hn Lateral l Voiceless lateral l Vibrants r Pre-aspirated vibrant hr Glides w y ɹ Pre-aspirated glides hw hy

Front Central Back Short Long Short Long Short Long

High i i: u u: Mid e e: ə oo:[ɔ:] Low a a:

Diphthongs: aw, ow, ay, oy

* The ts present in some of Bridges’s examples is not represented. Adam records two different palatal sibilants (written sh and sch, respectively). The corresponding phonetic difference is not known.

phonological system in which the voiced stops occur, but the dental fricatives and the coarticulated velar fricatives do not, supports this hypothesis, which must remain tenta- tive until a full-scale lexical analysis is undertaken. In what remains we will follow Golbert de Goodbar’s analysis and transcription. The opposition in length in the vowel system is allophonic, according to her, conditioned by stress. She describes syllable structure as being quite simple. According to Golbert de Goodbar onsets consist of at most two consonants, of which the second must be a sonorant. However, the data presented show several clusters involving sounds other than sonorants, and Bridges (1894: 54) shows sequences of complex consonants in his data, as in tstwi:a: ‘paint brush’. Codas consist of one consonant at most. There may be extra-long vowels in stressed positions. Bridges (1894: 54) claims that the Yahganstress system is rather irregular, but that in bisyllabic words penultimate stress is prevalent, while in longer words (very frequent) ante-penultimate stress is prevalent. Poblete and Salas (1999), however, claim that penultimate stress is prevalent throughout. There is a 570 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego complex set of morphophonemic alternations evident when words are combined. Bridges (1894: 55) gives the following pairs of sounds:

(33) rˇs əra ‘cry’ / kuˇsmu:ta ‘she is crying’ t,d hr ata ‘take’ / annu: guhr ‘he has taken’ pf a:pu: ‘pull up by the roots’ / əfga:mata ‘pull up the wrong one’ gx ta:gu: ‘give’ / təxləbata ‘to give several’ kx yi:ku: ‘scrape’ / kənna yixgaye:te: ‘who is scraping?’

As in Kawesqar, some lexical elements belong to several grammatical categories, but for the rest there is a clear opposition between verbs and nouns. Adjectives often resemble nouns, and both classes may be marked with the predicate marker -a(ki):

(34) a. ur´atur l´ıf wɑl´ıˇc-´as´ɑxup´ay3 [cf. English leaf; Spanish some plant good-PD illness for valer ‘be worth’] ‘Some plants are good for illness.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 24) b. par´ıkan-´oyna yɑs-´ˇ a break-IM.2S hand-PD ‘Break it with your hands.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7)

While generally predicate phrases are marked with verbal inflection, this predication marker -a(ki) either marks secondary predication, as in (35), or appears in basic pred- icative constructions on the predicate, as in (36):

(35) antɑp-´aki ha-wɑst´ˇ ak-oan at´ama meat-PD 1.SG-make-F meal ‘I am going to prepare a meal with meat.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7) (36) h´ıpay wɑl´ıˇcyɑh´ɑ(ki) 1.D good boy.PD ‘We two are good boys.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7)

Nominal compounds are right-headed:

(37) tala-glas [cf. English glass] eye-glass ‘spectacles’ (Guerra Eissmann 1995: 273)

Yahgan verbal morphology, as we will see, contains compounding, derivational pre- fixes, proclitic pronouns and enclitic tense markers. Nominal morphology is mostly

3 In Golbert de Goodbar’s example sentences the symbol ɑ stands for a low back vowel when stressed; elsewhere it is [ə]. 6.4 Linguistic features 571 limited to a few case suffixes. One of the most striking features of Yahgan is its verbal morphology. ‘Singular, dual, and plural verbs are a specialty in Yahgan, and simplify its syntax. The dual verbs are an inflection of the singular, but the plural verbs are to a very large extent totally different from their singular forms’, Bridges (1894: 67) writes. What is remarkable about the suppletive pattern is that it seems ergative in nature in that objects pattern with intransitive subjects. Consider the paradigm in (38):

(38) singular dual plural ta:gu: ta:gu:pay yatu: ‘to give 1, 2, more things’ ata ata:pay tu:mi:na ‘to take 1, 2, more things’ atəpi atəpipay wa:gu:pi ‘to put 1, 2, more things on board’ ------apəna apəna:pay ma:maya ‘1, 2, more die’ kəna kəna:pay a:lu: ‘1, 2, more are aboard, are on the water’ ka:taka ka:taka:pay u:tuˇsu: ‘1, 2, more go on foot’ (Bridges 1894: 68)

With transitive verbs the number of the object determines the shape of the verb, with intransitives the number of the subject. Another feature of Yahganverbal morphology worth mentioning, and which resembles Selknam and many Algonquian and northwest-coast languages of North America, is verb compounding and verb classification, which has led to an enormous lexicon in the language. Bridges (1894) gives a number of examples; we will illustrate the process with the derivatives of the verb kwissa ‘to pull’:

(39) kwisseta ‘to pull along, to draw on to some place’ kwissakaya ‘to pull up’ kwissa:mana:tsikari ‘to pull out’ kwissa:muˇci ‘to drag in’ kwissa:teka ‘to drag one thing to another, so as to be on it’ kwisso:ara:gu: ‘to drag ashore’ kwisso:anari ‘to pull into the water’ kwissa:pu:ku: ‘to pull into the fire’ kwisso:ana ‘to drag past’ kwissa:ku:ˇci ‘to pull into a boat any living object’ kwissa:təpi ‘to hoist on board’ kwissu:aka:na ‘to pull down, as trees down a steep bank’ 572 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

kwissu:ala ‘to pull out, undo, as a piece of knitting’ kwissayaˇsa / kwissa:tayaˇsa ‘to pull over and cove’ kwissu:ara:pu ‘to pull up, as a boat up a creek, by a line’ kwissu:ispe:ata ‘to pull awry, so as to be no longer straight’ kwissəmma / kwissəmmata ‘to rend, tear, pull to pieces, as a garment’ kwissu:a:turi ‘to pull down, as, for instance, the higher yards and masts’ kwissu:unna ‘to draw, as a horse does a cart’ ‘and so on, ad libitum’4 (Bridges 1894: 70)

Bruce Chatwin gives the following characterisation in his In Patagonia (1983: 128–9) of the Yahgan derivations, to support his view of Man as the Essential Wanderer:

The Yahgan tongue – and by inference all language – proceeds as a system of navigation. Named things are fixed points, aligned and compared, which allow the speaker to plot the next move.

Bridges gives many examples of the way meanings are formed, through often complex chains of metaphorisation. The root yi:nara ‘to gnaw’ yields yenuˇsyella ‘to continue gnawing’, which in turns gives rise to ci:nuˇˇ syella ‘to leave unconsumed by gnawing, as dogs the skeleton of an animal’. The latter form then comes to mean simply ‘skeleton’ (Bridges 1894: 70). The verbs of motion in Yahgan can be prefixed and, in many discourse contexts, must be prefixed with directional particles. These include the following:

(40) kə-, ka:g- ‘upward’, ‘the upper end of the wigwam’, ‘westward’ ku:-, kwi- ‘westward’ ku:t-, ku:ta:- ‘southward’, ‘to go out, as on a bowsprit, or to the edge of a cliff or branch to do anything’, ‘to go out from shore, whatever the direction’ ku:p-, ku:pa- ‘downward’ ma:n-, mana- ‘outward’ ma-, ma:t- ‘northward’, ‘to go or come ashore’, ‘to remove from off the fire to its confines, as the hob’ mət-, məta- ‘eastward’, ‘inward’, ‘to get to do anything well from custom’ (Bridges 1894: 71)

4 The forms taken from Bridges (1894) that are listed in (39) and elsewhere are based on a tentative interpretation of his rather idiosyncratic orthography and have to be considered with reserve. 6.4 Linguistic features 573

Adam (1885: 26) notes that some of these prefixes may also be suffixed to noun phrases:

(41) əkəhr-ku house-west ‘to the west of the house’ (Adam 1885: 26)

It is clear from Bridges’s description that these elements may also be used referentially:

(42) a. hawa-mə-ˇci 1.SG-east-side ‘the person to the east of me’ b. si-mə-ˇci 2.SG-east-side ‘the person to the east of you’ (Bridges 1894: 59)

From a syntactic perspective, the Yahgan inflection system can be characterised as follows:

(43)  (  ) 

Modals, such as k´ay ‘can’, k´uru ‘want’ and m´ay ‘habitual’, are never inflected for person and tense, and their complement is infinitive:

(44) h´ıpay k´ayuna ´ p´okˇsu y´enɑ m´ola 1.D can walk fast L day ‘We can walk fast during the day.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 40) (45) h´ay k´uru m´uruanˇ ´ ci wɑ ´rˇs 1.SG want climb that tree ‘I want to climb that tree.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 41) (46) ɑ´kɑrk´ɑmi-a m´ay il´ana house wood-PD CU build ‘Houses are generally built from wood.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 41)

The modal t´eynik(ɑ), marking external obligation, can either function as an impersonal verb, taking the clause as its complement, as in (47), or it can occupy the customary modal position, as in (48):

(47) l´ɑkɑxt´ɑrɑ t´eynik h´ıpayuna ´ ut ´ ɑsˇ night during it.is.necessary 1.D walk slowly ‘At night we must walk slowly.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 55) 574 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

(48) s´an t´eynikɑ at´amaerli ´ [cf. English early] 2.PL it.is.necessary eat early ‘You must eat early.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 42)

The following tense and mood markers occur, as verbal suffixes:

(49) -oan -ona -oa -on -o future -te -ute -ote -ite -utey past I -ɑrɑ -arɑ past II -ina -oyna -wina 2nd person imperative

The forms in (49) are given by Golbert de Goodbar (1977, 1985: 422). She distinguishes two types of future marking – ona and oa – without being able to differentiate them semantically. Given the other forms encountered, however, it is likely that we are dealing with allomorphs here. In Bridges (1894) future is indicated by -(y)u:a or -o:a, past by -ude: or -ara / -ra, and imperative by -i:na. In the present, there is no tense marking, and generally timeless statements are also without marking, as are infinitives. Often, past tense is not marked overtly either. It is not clear from the texts what the difference is between the te tense and the ɑrɑ tense; both are simply glossed and translated as past tenses. There is also a set of aspectual suffixes, related to motion particles, described by Golbert de Goodbar (1985: 422):

(50) -k´ata ‘arrive / continuative’ -tikila ‘make steps / imprecision, movement’ -y´ata ‘lie down / durative, stative’

When the subject is third person (generally a full noun phrase), the verb tends to be inflected, through a prefix:

(51) anˇ´ ci yɑs´ˇɑla-n-t´ an ka-wunors´ın-ote lɑ ´kɑx that dog-LK-PL 3S-bark-PA night ‘Those dogs barked last night.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 9)

With first- and second-person pronominal subjects, it rarely is:

(52) h´ay tɑn-k´ata n´ayf [cf. English knife] 1.SG have-CN knife ‘I have a knife.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 13)

Table 6.11 summarises the distribution of pronouns and inflection in the sentences pre- sented in the materials in Golbert de Goodbar (1977), disregarding structures involving 6.4 Linguistic features 575

Table 6.11 Person inflection in Yahgan (based on the materials in Golbert de Goodbar 1977)

noun (phrase) 3-V 21 noun (phrase) (3) ∅-V 5 null 3-V 3 pronoun 1, 2-V 5 pronoun (1, 2) ∅-V 33 null 1, 2-V 5 null ∅-V 2

modals. The subject can remain empty, e.g. with expletive subjects or with weather verbs:

(53) he´ın k´uka s´at´eri very like 2.SG cold ‘It seems you are cold.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 12) (54) t´ula p´alax´ana ur´atur k-ayn-´ona if rain few 3S-come-F ‘If it rains, few people will come.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 25)

Similarly with pronominal subjects in certain discourse contexts:

(55) h´ay t´ula t´eke ha-t-ay-´ona 1.SG if see 1S.SG-3O-call-F ‘I will call him if (I) see (him).’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 58)

The basic word order of Yahgan is rather difficult to determine from the data in Golbert de Goodbar (1977). Yahgan basically has subject–auxiliary–verb–object order, with some variations. The system in the noun phrase is predominantly head-final (56a–c), although some determiners can optionally occur postnominally, as shown in (57):

(56) a. wɑl´ıˇcy´ɑhɑ good boy ‘good boy’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7) b. anˇ´ ci y´amana that man ‘that man’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 8) c. h´awa t´uko 1P.SG wife ‘my wife’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 8) 576 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

(57) yɑs´ˇɑla anˇ ´ ci dog that ‘that dog’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 8)

There are two prepositions, t´esa ‘like’ and y´enɑ ‘in, at, on’, glossed here as locative (L):

(58) a. h´awuˇ ´ska p´ak´ukan t´esa sin´a 1P.SG clothes not equal like 2P.SG ‘My clothes are not like yours.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 51) b. h´awuˇ ´ska y´enɑ p´okˇs [cf. English box] 1P.SG clothes L box ‘My clothes are in the box.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 52)

Postpositions are much more common, however:

(59) a. y´ɑmuhkɑ st´uwɑk´ata h´awan tɑ ´wlo far city here from ‘The city is far from here.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 53) b. antɑ ´pa ps´ıy´enɑ s´ospi meat without L pot ‘There is no meat in the pot.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 54) c. l´ɑkɑxt´ɑrɑ t´eynik h´ıpayuna ´ ut ´ ɑsˇ night during it.is.necessary 1.D walk slowly ‘At night we must walk slowly.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 55)

Subordinate clauses always occur to the right of the matrix clause:

(60) h´ay k´atak-´oa snɑ ´tin pɑ ´lɑx´ana [cf. English it is nothing] 1.SG go.out-F although rain ‘I will go out even though it rains.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 57)

Conjunctions, such as t´eke ‘that’(?< Spanish de que ‘that’), asta´ ‘until’ (< Spanish hasta), and t´ula ‘if’ precede their clause:

(61) a. h´ay k´uru t´eke s´aat´ama 1.SG want that 2.SG eat ‘I want you to eat.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 57) 6.4 Linguistic features 577

b. xwan k-ɑ ´kɑŋ-k´ataasta ´ s´a mat´amati Juan 3.SG-sleep-CN until 2.SG arrive ‘Juan is asleep till you arrive.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 57) c. h´ay t´ula t´eke ha-t-ay-´ona 1.SG if see 1S.SG-3O-call-F ‘I will call him if I see (him).’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 58)

Adverbs either follow or precede the verb phrase:

(62) xwan´ ka-tup´oan-oteɑ ´wiut ´ ɑsˇ Juan 3.SG-throw-PA stone slowly ‘Juan threw the stone slowly.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 45)

(63) h´ɑrˇsp´okˇsu t´ato [cf. English horse] horse fast run ‘Horses run fast.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 37)

The fundamental order of object and verb is likewise not unproblematic. Generally objects follow the verb, both in main clauses and in subordinate clauses:

(64) s´an at-ɑ ´rɑ m´ani p´oket-n t´awlo [cf. English money, pocket] you.PL take-PA money pocket-LK from ‘You (plur.) took money from the pocket.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 28)

(65) xwan´ ka-k´alek-´arɑ p´edro-n-ˇci.k´a: akup´ana h´awan yɑs´ɑla Juan 3.SG-order-PA Pedro-LK-AC kill 1P.SG dog ‘Juan ordered Pedro to kill my dog.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 36)

There are a number of object–verb sequences, however:

(66) lam´ay´amana h´a-k´a: ka-kɑsit´at-ote drunk man 1.SG-AC 3.SG-accompany-PA ‘The drunk accompanied me.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 27)

(67) h´awa t´uku w´ata kɑ-k´atak-ute uˇsk´at´ukˇsi p´ay 1P.SG wife before 3.SG-go-PA clothes wash for ‘My wife went (away) to wash clothes.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 56)

It is not clear from the texts what causes this alternation. The cases where the object precedes the verb include indefinite noun phrases (without determiner) and pronouns. 578 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

Question words include the following:

(68) k´ana/kan ‘who’ kan´ı ‘of whom, with whom’ k´unˇci ‘which’ k´unˇci pl´eys ‘where’ [cf. English place] kunt´a ‘which, how, which class of’ k´owtu ‘what, what kind of’

Questioned elements tend to be fronted, but this does not appear to be obligatory:

(69) sinuˇ ´ska kunt´a-malak´ ´ ana 2P.SG clothes how-LK look ‘What did your clothes look like?’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1978: 20) (70) k´unˇci pl´eys tumu-t´atata aˇs´ukar which place CA-buy sugar ‘Where do they sell sugar?’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1978: 20)

This concludes our very brief sketch of Yahgan. A more detailed analysis, particularly of the very rich nineteenth-century materials, including New Testament translations and the Bridges dictionary, will be very worthwhile.

6.4.4 Areal-typological features of the Fuegian languages The question arises, naturally, whether Tierra del Fuego and Patagonia are one linguistic family and, if not, form a linguistic area. These questions need a more careful treatment than is possible here, where we can only make a few preliminary observations. More complete descriptions and more detailed comparative studies are needed before we can draw a firm conclusion. Nonetheless, Clairis (1998: 24) ventures the hypothesis that all the languages in the area are related. He stresses the shared phonological characteristics of the Fuegian languages, presented in table 6.12. These inventories are fairly similar in terms of the number of vowels and consonants distinguished, although there are differ- ences in the actual inventories, and the data in Adam suggest that the original systems may have been more divergent than what we encounter in the recent sources. Voicedand glot- talised consonants are present but not widespread, and retroflex articulations are not fre- quent. These data do not differentiate between areal and genetic relations by themselves. A similar general superficial correspondence is evident in the morphologies shown in table 6.13, where suffixation and encliticisation are widespread, as well as compound- ing and reduplication. Prefixation and procliticisation are also present in a number of languages, while suppletion appears to be rare. A big caveat here is that much more detailed morphological analysis is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. 6.5 Linguistic features 579

Table 6.12 Phonological features of the Fuegian languages*

Chono Kawesqar Yahgan Selknam G¨un¨una Yajich Tehuelche

#C 19 20/21 15/31 21 30 25 #V 6 3/6 6/12 6 7/8 6 Syl CVVC CCVVCC CCVVC CCVCCC CVVC CCVCC

* #C = number of consonant phonemes; #V = number of vowel phonemes; Syl = maximal syllabic complexity

Table 6.13 Morphological features of the Fuegian languages

Chono Kawesqar Yahgan Selknam G¨un¨una Yajich Tehuelche

Suffix ++ + + + + Prefix −− + + + + Proclitic −− + + ? + Enclitic ++ + + ? + Compounding ? ++++ + Suppletion ? −+−− − Reduplication ++ + ? + ?

Table 6.14 Constituent order features of the Fuegian languages (NP = noun phrase; P = postposition)

Chono Kawesqar Yahgan Selknam G¨un¨una Yajich Tehuelche

Postpositional NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P phrase Noun phrase ? AJ N AJ N N AJ N AJ N AJ Clause OVS/SOV SOV SVO/SOV OVS VOS/SVO SOV

Turning now to the word order of the languages of Tierra del Fuego, again there are certain widespread basic word-order patterns, as shown in table 6.14. Most languages appear to be of the OV type, but the position of the subject varies considerably, and table 6.14 oversimplifies matters somewhat. While these observations certainly tend to underline the similarities between these languages, it would be premature to conclude on their basis that we are dealing with a linguistic area here. A wider range of more specific features needs to be compared for this cluster of languages. 580 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

6.5 Oral literature There is a rich tradition of oral literature for most of the groups mentioned. Wilbert’s work includes edited English-language versions of the folk tales collected by Martin Gusinde in the 1920s among the Selknam (Wilbert 1975) and Yahgan (Wilbert 1977). Wilbert and Simoneau (1984) bring together Tehuelche folk tales from a wide variety of sources, mostly Argentinian, and the publication of a volume of Kawesqar folk literature is announced. A collection of Tehuelche texts with translation and notes is available in Fern´andez Garay (1997b). Guyot (1968) analyses and compares Selknam and Yahgan myths, again on the basis of the Gusinde materials, within the tradition of L´evi-Strauss. She notes the many par- allels between the mythology of these unrelated but neighbouring peoples, suggesting prolonged cultural contact.

6.6 Language contact Reports about contacts between the canoe nomads are mixed. Gusinde (1937: 233– 46) argues that geographical conditions inhibited contacts between the Yahgan and their neighbours: Kawesqar in the west, and Haush and Selknam in the east. Only in late colonial times were contacts more frequent. Viegas Barros (1993) argues that the amount of linguistic borrowing suggests much closer ties between the Selknam and the Kawesqar than between the Selknam and the Yahgan. There was barter of artifacts and raw materials, and some exchange marriages. Knowledge of each other’s language was limited and rare, however. Eastern Yahgan took over some Selknam words, and the reverse happened as well. The Selknam were driven into Yahgan territory during the extermination raids of the late nineteenth century. Contacts between the Yahgan and the Kawesqar were somewhat more frequent, in part because both groups had a similar economic basis. Lucas Bridges ([1948] 1987: 61) suggests that there were incidental marriages between the Kawesqar and the Yahganin the latter half of the nineteenth century, and reports cases of Yahgan–Kawesqar bilingualism (1987: 131). Bilingualism was rare, however. There was no occasion for barter. Gusinde (1931: 142–3) notes that meetings between the Selknam and the Kawesqar were rather more frequent, but again limited to barter. There was no evidence of people knowing the language of the other groups, except for some borrowings. Lucas Bridges (1948: 132), however, mentions an encounter with Chono speakers where one Kawesqar knew that language.5 The foot nomads showed more evidence of multilingualism. The Tehuelche moved around in a large territory, and intermarried with Mapuche and Europeans of different

5 We are indebted to H´el`ene Brijnen for calling our attention to this passage in Bridges’s book. 6.6 Language contact 581 nationalities. At one point, some Tehuelches knew Spanish, Mapuche, G¨un¨una Yajich and Teushen in addition to Tehuelche. D’Orbigny mentions one quadrilingual Tehuelche woman, Lunareja, around 1830 (d’Orbigny 1945). Fern´andez Garay (1998c: 49–50) stresses the fact that linguistic taboo, the prohibition among the Tehuelche of using words resembling the name of a deceased person for a year, may have stimulated linguistic borrowing. Viegas Barros (to appear b) interprets a word list collected by Olivier van Noort in the Strait of Magellan in 1599, arguing that it represents the speech of a group of foot nomads who had adopted (or possibly maintained from an earlier period) ca- noe transport, and while speaking a Chonan language, adopted a number of Kawesqar words. The mirror image of this group is that of a group of Kawesqar living on the Brunswick Peninsula who had adopted part of the foot nomad culture and a number of Tehuelche words in the nineteenth century (Viegas Barros, to appear b). Viegas Barros argues on the basis of a number of borrowings and of a shared term for the Kawesqar in Selknam and Tehuelche that contacts between the foot and canoe nomads must have dated back to prehistoric times. Summing up, the various forms of contacts in the whole region reported (sometimes without much substantiation) by the various authors took the form of: – mixed marriages, particularly in the late colonial period; – barter between the Selknam on one side and the Yahgan or Kawesqar on the other; – slaving raids (e.g. by the Chono in Kawesqar territory); – shared fishing grounds (e.g. between the Kawesqar and the Yahgan); – capture of Kawesqar women by the Tehuelche; – migration of groups of Selknam across the Strait of Magellan and integra- tion of the latter into the Tehuelche, – migration of Tehuelches across the Strait of Magellan; – extensive migration of Mapuche Indians into Patagonia. Europeans were first looked upon with some awe, and were later much hated and despised. Gusinde reports that Europeans were called palala by the Yahgan. Bridges (1894) gives as the meaning of a possibly related word upalalana ‘to make a noise by vibrating the tongue in the mouth violently’; thus the term would refer to the incompre- hensible way of speaking of Europeans. Another possible source is patalsala, according to Gusinde, which means something like ‘incomprehensible people’. In any case, it is clear that the contacts with the Europeans meant the end of the peoples and languages of Tierra del Fuego. We now turn to the effect these contacts had on the languages of the area. It should be clear that what follows is highly tentative, incomplete and preliminary. Much more 582 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego work is needed, for instance, on the lexical influence that the different languages had on each other. Both Yahgan and Kawesqar contain a substantial number of European borrowings. Yahgan tends to have borrowed more from English than from Spanish, Kawesqar almost exclusively from Spanish. English borrowings in Yahgan include: m´aykl ‘Michael’, m´ari ‘Mary’, p´eyper ‘paper’, n´ayf ‘knife’, h´arˇs ‘horse’, m´ani ‘money’, pl´eys ‘place’, k´ɑrpɑntɑr ‘carpenter’, erli´ m´oniŋ ‘early morning’, l´ıf ‘leaf’. Spanish borrowings include xwan´ ‘John’, aˇs´ukar ‘sugar’, r´uta ‘route’, wɑl´ıˇc ‘good’, and m´aytro ‘teacher’. Particularly in the case of Kawesqar, words have been extensively adapted phono- logically. Words largely, but not exclusively, refer to borrowed culture items. In the Kawesqar texts in Clairis (1987) only borrowed nouns appear, while in the Yahgan material in Golbert de Goodbar (1977) we find conjunctions as well:

(71) b´ɑt ‘but’ [English but] snɑ ´tin ‘even though’ [English it is nothing] bif´or ‘before that’ [English before] i ‘and’ [Spanish y] o ‘or’ [Spanish o] asta´ ‘until’ [Spanish hasta] p´orke ‘because’ [Spanish porque]

Remarkably, no elements have been incorporated as verbs or prepositions, with the possible exception of the modal operator t´eynik(ɑ) ‘obligation’, which could be derived from Spanish tiene que ‘has to’. G¨un¨una Yajich contains a number of Mapuche and Spanish borrowings. Tehuelche and G¨un¨una Yajich have taken over the Aymara words for ‘hundred’ and ‘thousand’ from the Araucanians. Casamiquela speculates that the G¨un¨una Yajich word order he recorded from the last speaker of the language was influenced by Mapuche, and Viegas Barros (1995) suggests that the orginal person system of the Chonan languages has been restructured under the influence of Mapuche. Fern´andez Garay (1998c) gives a very detailed description of processes of language attrition that have affected Tehuelche.

6.7 ATehuelche text Several spontaneous texts have been published in the languages of Tierra del Fuego. We include here a southern Tehuelche flood myth, part of the Elal cycle, told shortly after 1920 by K’opach¨us to J. C. Wolf, who ‘called himself encargado of the Linguistics section of the Museo de la Plata’ (G. Hern´andez 1992: 115). The myth is reproduced in G. Hern´andez (1992: 132–3, 138). Below the original orthography in the source text we present in curly brackets an approximate phonetic rendition and analysis, based 6.7 A Tehuelche text 583 on Fern´andez Garay (1997b, 1998c, personal communication). Casamiquela (1992) provided additional notes.

1. Tsh´onke tsh´aink’ t¨aRnk¨ak!¨a-u; {c’o:nkˇ c’ay-n-k ˇ ter-n-k k’ew} people be.big-N-MS be.tall-N-MS formerly ‘They were tall, big people formerly.’ 2. m´atshke tschonk, t!¨aRosh {ma:-ˇs-k’ec’o:nk ˇ t’ero-ˇs} kill-PD-RD.MS6 people be.bad-PD ‘They were man-killers and bad.’ 3. m´ashke tsh´onkie, w´ıllum n´auoiyu, ´ {ma:-ˇs-k’ec’o:nk, ˇ welom na:w ʔoyo} kill-PD-RD.MS people all guanaco ostrich ‘They killed people. All the guanaco, the ostrich,’ 4. tsh´aRo7 oienkl,´ m´ashke tsh´onke. {k’aroʔʔoygl ma:-ˇs-k’ec’o:nk ˇ } hawk condor kill-PD-RD.MS people ‘the hawk, the condor used to kill people.’ 5. K’¨anuknk’on d´ıos tsh´ait g´atken¨ashke, {qenkenk’en diosc’ay-t(o) ˇ ga:nkene-ˇs-k’e} sun god be.big-AV be.angry-PD-RD.MS ‘The Sun God became very angry’ 6. k¨a-´ut¨ashk¨al¨a-¨at¨aRnk¨a. {k-e:wet’e-ˇs-k’e leʔ ter-n-k} 3O.MS-send-PD-RD.MS water be.high-N-MS ‘and sent a big flood.’ 7. O-ukt¨´ aw´anken x´ono sh¨ahuen k’¯on l¨a-¨a´aintke, {ʔe:w-k’ t-waʔn-k’n xonosanwen ˇ 8 k’o:n leʔʔayn-t-k’e} upward-AL 3S-go-RD.NU sea spring river water rise-MD-RD.MS ‘Upwards came the sea, the springs and rivers; the water rose,’ 8. willum tsh´aRak¨¨ an g¨a-ut¨a. Willom x´amtsh. {welom t-ˇsa:re-k’n ge:wte welom xa:m-ˇc} all 3S-be.filled-RD.NU land all die-PL ‘until all the land was covered. Then they all died.’

6 The endings of the realis mood (RD) encode a gender distinction; the gender indicated is that of a following noun (Fern´andez Garay 1998c: 275). 7 The form tsh´aRo (probably [ˇc’arroʔ]) may represent a dialectal variant of k’aroʔ ‘hawk’. 8 Both the pronunciation and interpretation of sh¨ahuen are incertain. The word sanwenˇ ‘whirlpool’, mentioned in Fern´andez Garay (1998c: 98), seems to fit the context here. 584 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego

9. P´ain u´aitshk¨au´ait¨a {pa:y(n) w-ayt-ˇs-k’e w-ayte} consequently RF-get.lost-PD-RD.MS RF-get.lost ‘So then they disappeared, they disappeared.’ 10. K’¨an¨uknk’on d´ıos k¨a-´ut¨ashke k’aRuya g¨a-ut’ak¨ ¨ anu; {qenkenk’en dios k-e:wet’e-ˇs-k’e k’aroʔ ...ge:wt ʔay k’e-n naon} Sun god 3O.MS-send-PD-RD.MS hawk...land L look.around-IF BN ‘The Sun God then sent the hawk to look around on earth,’ 11. g´omshkent tu´al k’´aRo {k’om-ˇs-k’n t-wa:l k’aroʔ} not-PD-RD.NU 3S-come.back hawk ‘but the hawk did not come back.’ 12. g´omshkent x¨ana-uk; ¨ tsh´ait x´atkan k’´or. {k’om-ˇs-k’n t-xeʔn ʔe:w-k’c’ay-t(o) ˇ xa:t’e-k’n k’o:r} not-PD-RD.NU 3S-fly upward-AL, be.big-AV eat-RD.NU grass ‘He could not fly any more; he had eaten too much grass.’ 13. K’¨an¨uknk’on k¨a-´ut¨ashken k´amk¨om; {qenkenk’en k-e:wet’e-ˇs-k’n kamk’om} sun 3O.FE-send-PD-RD.FE dove ‘Then the Sun God sent the dove.’ 14. k’´oran¨ ´ ashka-uk ¨ k´amk¨om. {k’o:r ʔa:ne-ˇs-k’ ʔe:w-k’ kamk’om} grass bring-PD-RD upward-AL dove ‘The dove brought (a leaf of) grass upwards.’ 15. G¨a-utarshk¨ ´ an {ge:wt ʔa:r-ˇs-k’n} land be.dry-PD-RD.NU ‘Then the land was dry.’ 7

The Spanish presence

Manuel Tenorio, over sixty years old, and a Quechua peasant from central Ecuador, recounts how he learned Spanish as a boy, on the job at the hacienda and during visits to the market town. When a white man came by on horseback, Manuel was obliged to say the greeting alabado sacramento ‘blessed (be the) Sacrament’ or alabado evangelio ‘blessed (be the) Gospel’, and was answered back alabado hijo ‘blessed (be the) Son’ (perhaps also ‘blessed, sonny’). However, as a Quechua speaker he had great difficulties with the vowels [e] and [o] (often pronouncing them as [i] and [u], respectively), and the punishment for mispronunciation was fierce, so he used to dive into the irrigation channel when he heard a horse approaching. Almost at the end of his life, in spite of years in the capital as a construction worker, his Spanish still shows many traces of his Indian background. The Spaniards have imposed their language in all their former colonies in the New World. Not only the immigrants from Europe speak Spanish, but the descendants of the African slaves and Chinese coolies, and a large part of the native Amerindian population as well. Nonetheless, the transplanted forms of the language have undergone many modifications, as in the speech of Manuel Tenorio, and the relationship between Spanish and the dominated Amerindian languages is a complex one. In this chapter we discuss various aspects of the relation between Spanish and the native languages of the Andes. We first look at Andean Spanish from a number of perspectives, and then at various dimensions of language planning and bilingual education. Other immigrant languages, such as Mennonite German and Japanese in Bolivia, Chinese in Peru, and Lebanese Arabic in different Andean countries, will not be dis- cussed: they are characteristic of the New World as a whole rather than of the Andean nations.

7.1 Characteristics of Andean Spanish Andean Spanish can be approached from many perspectives. We will briefly discuss the relation of this variety to the dialects of the metropolis, before turning to issues such as the influence it may have undergone from Quechua and other Amerindian languages. 586 7 The Spanish presence

7.1.1 Demography and Iberian dialectal origins The question of which Iberian dialects contributed most to New World Spanish is a vexed one, but a modicum of consensus emerged in the 1970s, mainly due to work by Boyd-Bowman (e.g. 1973). There are several main issues: (a) The varieties of Spanish in the New World are much more homogeneous than the ones in Spain itself, in spite of the much wider geographical spread, the lack of inter- regional communication, the potential diversifying influence of Amerindian substratum languages, etc. This is part of a general phenomenon noticed by the anthropologist George Foster in his Culture and Conquest (1960), namely that export varieties of a culture represent only a limited subset of the cases of variation present in the source culture. Boyd-Bowman (1973) points to the fact that in the early period, 1490–1520, there may have been extensive dialect levelling in the Antilles, and that the mainland was populated from the islands. Also, the Canary Islands may have been a site for dialect levelling intermediate between Spain and the New World. From other studies of export varieties of European languages and from creole studies we know that of- ten the early period in colonisation is decisive for the establishment of new linguistic norms. The levelling process may already have been started in Seville, the Spanish port through which the emigration stream was funnelled, and this brings us to the second issue. (b) A classic problem has always been that Latin American Spanish resembles the southern varieties of peninsular Spanish, particularly Andalucian Spanish, more than the standard in the sixteenth century, which was surely that of the court in Toledo and later Madrid, i.e. Castilian. We have already pointed to the role of Seville as the Atlantic port, but Boyd-Bowman’s main contribution lies in establishing that indeed the main body of emigrants to the New World was from the south. For the whole period 1493–1579, 35.8 per cent of the settlers came from Andalucia and 16.9 per cent from neighbouring Extremadura. The two Castiles together only provided 29.5 per cent. For the early period, the figures are even more striking. Thus between 1493 and 1519 the Seville province provided six times as many (1,259 of a total of 5,481) emigrants as the province of Toledo (208), and the nearby provinces Huelva, Badajoz and C´aceres provided another 1,174. If we look at women settlers, who may have played a crucial role in creating the new linguistic norms, between 1509 and 1519, when the New World society was being given shape, over half (of 308 total) were from Seville. This type of figure is fairly constant for the different Andean regions, although it is noted by Boyd-Bowman that Colombia and Venezuelahad a somewhat higher proportion of settlers from the two Castiles than Peru. (c) A third main issue concerns the somewhat surprising fact that the lowland coastal areas tend to resemble Andalucian speech more directly than the highland areas, actually throughout Latin America. Boyd-Bowman (1973: 67) tentatively explains this in terms 7.1 Characteristics of Andean Spanish 587 of ‘a vast maritime empire the ports of which were linked by sea to Seville (and to each other) along trade routes controlled and maintained predominantly by Andalucian sailors and merchants’. The ensuing network may have had a more direct and enduring influence on the coastal areas around the ports than on the highland regions.

7.1.2 Linguistic features It has been said many times before, but systematic and reliable studies on varieties of South American Spanish are few and far between; cf. the critical evaluation by Lipski (1994) of a number of studies, as well as Fontanella de Weinberg (1976). The discussion of specific Andalucian dialect features has focused on phonology. The most striking feature, of course, shared by Latin America and southern Spain is the absence of the [θ]/[¸s] contrast (‘ceceo’ versus ‘seseo’) so characteristic of Castilian. Other features, such as aspiration and loss of word-final /s/, loss or weakening of intervocalic /d/, and merger of /ly/ and /y/ (‘ye´ısmo’) can also be mentioned, but are characteristic of the coastal areas, not of the highlands. In addition, these features are not realised uniformly either in southern Spain or in Latin America, and in many places need more detailed study. The most immediately striking difference in the domain of morphosyntax concerns the second-person pronouns. Very roughly, the present situation in some places is as follows:

(1) Spain South America 2.SG familiar: t´u 2.SG familiar: vos 2.SG polite: usted 2.SG intimate: t´u 2.PL familiar: vosotros/as 2.SG polite: usted 2.PL polite: ustedes 2.PL ustedes

Here ‘intimate’ refers to respectful address in a close relationship, and with ‘familiar’ no particular respect is implied. The form vos was present in older peninsular Spanish as a polite second-person- singular pronoun, but has largely disappeared in Spain and in parts of Latin America, such as coastal Peru and Ecuador. In some areas (e.g. Argentina), t´u has been replaced almost entirely by vos, and there the original verbal inflections associated with the latter pronoun are preserved as well. Elsewhere, vos is used with the verbal inflections associated with t´u.Inareas where both t´u and vos occur, the former is used in more formal contexts and the latter is often considered a sign of lack of a proper education. In parts of Colombia, finally, usted, the polite second-person-singular form elsewhere, is often called for in non-intimate but familiar contexts. There are a great many lexical differences both between the varieties of Spanish in the different countries of South America, and between this continent and Spain. These 588 7 The Spanish presence

Table 7.1 Major isoglosses in the Andean areas of Latin American Spanish (based on Zamora Munn´e and Guitart 1982)

/s/ /x/ vos

IV. Colombia except the coast + – ± V. Pacific coast of Ecuador and Colombia – – ± VI. Coast of Peru, except the extreme south – – – VII. Rest of Ecuador and Peru, west and centre of Bolivia, ++± northwest Argentina VIII. Chile – +±

need not concern us at the moment, although we will return to items borrowed from Amerindian languages. Zamora Munn´e and Guitart (1982) provide a fairly balanced and comprehensive account of some of the major dialectal divisions in Latin American Spanish. They base themselves on three diagnostic features, which constitute major isoglosses: (a) the retention (+)versus loss or aspiration (−)offinal /s/; (b) the velar (+)orglottal (−) realisation of /x/; (c) general use of vos (+), of t´u (−), of both (±). For the regions that concern us most, they distinguish the five major dialect areas (with their numbering) listed in table 7.1. Surely other or finer divisions are imaginable, but the dialect splits outlined in table 7.1 correspond fairly well to global impressions of speakers of varieties of Andean Spanish. It should be stressed that thorough descriptive work of Andean Spanish dialects is uneven in quality and coverage (Bolivian Spanish, for instance, has been barely in- vestigated); in addition, different studies have focused on widely different features. A classical study remains Kany’s (1945) survey of regional grammatical features in the different varieties of Latin American Spanish, based on written sources. Lipski (1994) provides an excellent country-by-country account of available studies. Perl and Schwegler (1998) survey the evidence for African influences on Ibero-American lan- guage varieties. Colombian Spanish is fairly well described, starting with the pioneering work of Rufino Jos´e Cuervo (1867) on the speech of Bogot´a. More recent studies include, for in- stance, de Granda’sinteresting study of Afro-Hispanic speech varieties of the Colombian Pacific coast area (1977). Present-day has been described most completely by Toscano Mateus (1953). There are considerable lexical and phonological differences between Coastal and Highland Spanish, on the one hand, and between educated urban Spanish and different rural varieties on the other. On the whole Ecuadorian Spanish conforms to the generalisation that holds for all varieties of South American Spanish: many archaic 7.2 Amerindian substratum influence 589

Peninsular features have been preserved, and the dominant dialectal influence has been the Andalucian dialects of southern Spain. The major source for Peruvian Spanish remains Benvenutto Murrieta (1936), although numerous articles and monographs have appeared on individual phenomena. Ana Mar´ıa Escobar (2000) surveys much current research on Peruvian Spanish, paying particular attention to semantic factors, and Rivarola (1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1987) has investigated the origins and development of Peruvian Andean Spanish. Another good general source is Klee (1996). Reliable information about Bolivian Spanish is rather limited. Building on an earlier study by Kany (1947), there is a brief but detailed phonetic study by Gordon (1980), showing that Bolivian Spanish cannot be simply subsumed under the varieties of neigh- bouring countries, dialectologically.Further, work by Herrero (1969) and Laprade (1981) argues that different varieties of Bolivian Spanish have undergone Quechua and Aymara substrate influence, respectively. The complex lexical interactions between Bolivian Quechua and Spanish are studied in Van Hout and Muysken (1994). Alb´o (1988b) documents the ‘llapuni’ Spanish of highland migrants to the tropical Santa Cruz area. For Chile the best recent source remains Oroz (1966). A dialect atlas of southern Chile was compiled under the direction of Guillermo Araya (Araya et al. 1973). An interesting study of mining vocabulary in northern Chile, which reveals the presence of several Quechua and Aymara words, is Parada et al. (1976). Mining vocabulary, incidentally, has also been studied, albeit in a rather amateurish way, in Bolivia, but this extremely rich subject, revelatory of the shaping of a mixed Amerindian–Hispanic technology and culture, still awaits a more definitive study. Quechua influence on the Spanish of northwestern Argentina has recently been studied by de Granda (1995, 1996, 1997a, b).

7.2 Amerindian substratum influence The possibility of various Amerindian languages influencing Andean Spanish has been a long-standing issue in Hispanicist scholarship, with important cultural implications as well. When the new republics gained independence from Spain in the 1830s, an important link to the old metropolis, but also something linking the young nations themselves, was the Spanish language. This led to a set of contradictory attitudes. On the one hand, the unity of Latin America, the old dream of Sim´on Bol´ıvar, was best maintained through a unified Spanish, and thus directly a continuation of the metropolitan norm. If each new nation were left to its own devices, it was felt, the Spanish of the Americas would fragment just as Vulgar Latin had in the Dark Ages. On the other hand, the felt a need to express, in their language, both a distance from Spain and the many particular features of the New World and of the area they inhabited and were trying to forge into a country. 590 7 The Spanish presence

Table 7.2 Types of speakers of Spanish that may show influence from Quechua

(A) Quechua speakers learning Spanish (B) Stable Quechua–Spanish bilinguals (C) Spanish monolinguals living in bilingual communities (D) Spanish monolinguals living in bilingual regions (E) Spanish monolinguals living in bilingual countries

It is against this background that we must see the debates about possible Amerindian influences on Andean Spanish (for a general account of the role of language ideology see Woolard and Schieffelin 1994). But there is more. The Spanish colonial empire was founded on the assumption that what is Hispanic has inherent value, and what is native is worthless if not downright ungodly. It is not until the indigenista movements of the 1920s that the Amerindian heritage was recognised as worthwhile, not just for the Indian peasants themselves, but for the countries in general. There have been discussions in the literature about various cases of Amerindian lan- guage influence on Spanish. Araucanian influence on Chilean Spanish, was proposed by Lenz (1893) (cf. chapter 5). Similarly, several studies have focused on Aymara influ- ence on the Spanish of the Bolivian altiplano (Hardman 1981). Nonetheless, the main debate has focused on Quechua influence, and this is what we will concentrate on here, mentioning Aymara only in passing. Given the many structural and semantic parallels between these two languages (cf. chapter 3), it would be surprising if the influence of Quechua and Aymara on Spanish in southern Peru and Bolivia had not led to mutual reinforcement. When we consider Quechua influence on Spanish, the picture is quite complex, since much depends on which variety of Spanish is meant: the Spanish of the whole central Andes, of the areas where Quechua is or was spoken, of lower-class mestizos in those areas, or of Quechua–Spanish bilinguals? Taking the whole central Andes is too wide, yet taking just bilinguals is too narrow, we believe. There are also considerable regional and national differences. Finally, it depends what aspect of the language is considered. Schematically, the Spanish of the different speaker types is shown in table 7.2. On the whole, these categories are arranged implicationally: if a Quechua feature occurs with speakers of type (D), it will also occur in (B), but not necessarily vice-versa. However, we will see that in some cases Quechua influence exerts itself in the Spanish speech of stable bilinguals, while the same feature is not present in the speech of incipient bilinguals. Lexically, the influence of Quechua on Spanish has been slight, limited to the domains of agriculture, food, flora and fauna, the household and clothing, musical folklore, 7.2 Amerindian substratum influence 591

Table 7.3 Sprachbund phenomena in the pronunciation of liquids and vibrants in different varieties of Quechua and Spanish in Ecuador

Quechua Spanish Quechua Spanish

North [ˇz] [ˇz] [aˇzi] ‘good’ [poˇzo] ‘chicken’ South [ly][ly] [alyi] [polyo] North [ˇz. ], [ˇr] [ˇz. ], [ˇr] [ˇz. iŋri], [ˇrinri] ‘ear’ [peˇz. o], [peˇro] ‘dog’ South [rr] [rr] [rriŋri] [perro] popular religion and illnesses. The vast majority of borrowed elements are nouns, such as llama, alpaca and chacra ‘field’. There are a handful of derived verbs, such as yapar ‘to add a bit (in a sales transaction)’, chimbar ‘to cross’, pircar ‘build a wall of stones and adobe’ and chancar ‘to flatten’, an occasional adverb such as pite pite ‘bit by bit’, and exclamatives such as achachay ‘brrr, cold’ (Buesa Oliver 1965). Afew Quechua words have gained acceptance beyond Spanish, such as English jerky from charki ‘dried meat’ and la-gnappe ‘small added bit’ from the above-mentioned yapa. Mej´ıas (1980) has shown that there were Quechua lexical items used in Spanish from the sixteenth century onwards; their number gradually increased, at least until the eighteenth century. Lexical influence is the only type of Quechua influence of type (E) in the scheme above. Of course, it varies a great deal in terms of region, type of speaker, setting and domain, etc. The lexical influence of Aymara has been somewhat more limited in its diffusion. In La Paz Spanish many Aymara words are used, such as chusca ‘square carrying cloth’, imilla ‘girl’, colla ‘inhabitant of the altiplano’ and cala ‘stone’ (Laprade 1981), but these are not known much outside the region. An important issue mentioned by Laprade concerns lexical semantic influence exercised by Amerindian languages on Spanish. A case in point is pie,which in metropolitan Spanish means ‘foot’, but under the influence of Aymara kayu has come to refer to most of the leg. This same phenomenon merits detailed investigation in the case of Quechua influence on Spanish as well. On the phonological level, the one case of Quechua influence on Spanish reported by all authors is the pronunciation of /o/ as [u] and of /e/ as [i]. More precisely, we encounter fusion of /e/ and /i/ into something varying between [e] and [i], and of /o/ and /u/ into something varying between [o] and [u]. Quechua-speakers may pronounce pero ‘but’ as [piru], but also cubicar ‘make into a cube’ as [kobekar], due to hypercorrection. This influence, though general in the whole Quechua-speaking Andes, is limited, however, to (A) and (B). Even lower-class mestizo monolinguals do not have it. In Ecuador, there are two interesting sprachbund or convergence phenomena, both involving liquids, as shown in table 7.3. In the northern part of the Ecuadorian high- lands the palatalised [ly], which is widely found in Andean Spanish and in Quechua, 592 7 The Spanish presence is pronounced as a voiced palatal sibilant in the local dialects of both languages, and the Spanish trilled [rr] (with its Quechua equivalent in word-initial position) is a voiced retroflex fricative or an assibilated retroflex vibrant. Notice that it cannot be plausibly claimed that Quechua influenced Spanish here, since the more conservative varieties of Quechua (here represented by the south of Ecuador) do not possess the features in question. Syntactically and semantically, Quechua may have had some influence on the mono- lingual highland varieties of rural Spanish (C and D), in addition to stamping the bilingual varieties. If we try to imagine how this influence was exerted, the most plausible scenario is one of second-language learning by Quechua speakers in a sociolinguistically com- plex environment. The particular stratification of variable elements within the Spanish target-language speech community affects the process of acquisition of these elements. This stratification is crucial because it may reflect, in part, stages of interrupted or in- complete L2 acquisition at an earlier point in time. As time goes on, the products of intermediate and advanced interlanguage grammars (A and B) are incorporated into the native speech community (C and D), but most often as vernacular, non-standard forms. In a synchronic perspective, then, native speakers of the target vernacular end up producing outputs which seem like interlanguage outputs. The particular interlanguage features which come to be adopted as non-standard features in the Spanish target speech community serve as models, at a later stage, for new learners. L´opez and Jung (1989) show how non-standard features are present in primary school in the speech of the local teachers with bilingual backgrounds. The process of selection and adoption of these features, however, may be gov- erned by factors such as superficial resemblance to native language features. This selection and adoption may result in a situation in which two speech communities may have different vernacular varieties, while they result from the interaction and contact of the same L1 and L2. We will illustrate this by comparing the acquisi- tion of Spanish by Quechua speakers in different regions of the Andes. Quite dif- ferent forms of Spanish vernacular have emerged in the different contexts, making a simple prediction on the basis of a contrastive analysis of Quechua and Spanish implausible. The existing literature on non-standard Spanish, as used in regions with Quechua– Spanish bilingualism, is by now quite extensive, but little of it is based on ac- countable and rigorous data. Most studies deal with Peru. We will take the situ- ation of Peruvian Andean Spanish as our frame of reference and contrast it with what is known of other areas. The main grammatical constructions and semantic fea- tures mentioned are listed in table 7.4. We will discuss the features in table 7.4 one by one. 7.2 Amerindian substratum influence 593

Table 7.4 Features claimed to be due to Quechua in different varieties of Spanish

a. Double possessives b. Clitic usage c. Object–verb sequences d. Irregular gender and number concord, and irregular verb morphology e. The redundant use of the preposition en ‘in’ in locative expressions f. The frequent use of gerunds g. Sentential particles and discourse organisation h. Semantics of tense, notably of the sudden discovery tense

A. Double possessives are a good case to start with. They occur in examples such as (Lozano 1975):

(2) Era su amiga de Juan. it.was 3P girlfriend of John ‘It was John’s girlfriend.’ (Type I) (3) Se quem´o del joven su pantal´on. RF it.burned of.the young.man 3P trousers ‘The young man’s trousers burned.’ (Type II)

Note that in the first example the possessor noun, Juan, follows the possessed noun, amiga,while in the second one the order is the reverse. In both, there is a possessor noun as well as the possessive pronoun su. Lozano (1975), based on material from Ayacucho, south-central Peru, is not very explicit about his data base, and describes different aspects of Ayacucho rural Spanish deviant from Lima standard Spanish, focusing on the question of possible influence from Quechua. Lozano does not report on the frequencies of the constructions described or on the issue of whether they typify monolingual vernacular or bilingual Spanish. He concludes (1975: 304) that all cases are traceable, at least indirectly, to Quechua interference. However, the ways in which the innovations have been formed are varied and complex. While Lozano (1975) makes strong claims concerning the influence of Quechua on bilingual Spanish, Puente (1978) would like to limit this influence to subordinate bilin- guals, more proficient in Quechua than in Spanish. Puente’swork is based on observations from Huancayo, central Peru, and Ayacucho, south-central Peru. Puente claims that type II sentences are more frequent with compound bilinguals. Rodr´ıguez Garrido (1982) argues that type I, with a following possessor noun, is characteristic of Peruvian Spanish in general, and an archaic construction. It is absent 594 7 The Spanish presence with anything but persons or at least animate beings, and then limited to the third person. We do not find:

(4) a. ∗su ladrillo del muro 3P brick of.the wall ‘the brick of the wall’ b. ∗mi casa de m´ı my house of me ‘my house (of mine)’

These restrictions are absent in type II, which is limited to the strong Quechua area of the southern highlands, and surprisingly, to Amazon Spanish, and here Rodr´ıguez Garrido claims that Quechua influence is likely. In Ecuadorian Spanish the situation is quite different. In recordings of an early bilingual we find twenty-six cases of possessed NP de possessor NP, as in vecino de Francisco ‘neighbour of Francisco’. In addition there was one case of posses- sor/possessed: Francisco casa (rather than la casa de Francisco)‘Francisco’s house’, and one case of a noun preceded by the noun it is supposed to identify, but without the preposition de: diez Tigua ‘ten from Tigua’ (rather than diez de Tigua). Other speak- ers in the recordings sample show a large predominance of standard structures, and very few deviant examples. Interestingly enough, the construction mentioned in the Peruvian research literature involving the redundant possessive pronoun su is entirely lacking. It is very possible that the absence of the double genitive in Ecuadorian Spanish is due to its absence in Ecuadorian Quechua. Compare the following examples:

(5) a. Peru Juan-pa mama-n de Juan su madre John-G mother-3P of John 3P mother ‘John’s mother’ ‘John’s mother’ b. Ecuador Juan-pak mama la madre de Juan John-G mother the mother of John ‘John’s mother’ ‘John’s mother’

In the Peruvian case, the possessed noun receives a third-person marker -n,which cor- responds semantically to the ‘redundant’ su. This marker is absent in Ecuador. The differences within Quechua do not explain the differences between the two coun- tries, however, for possessor/possessed order, unless we would argue that the presence of su makes it possible in Peru to interpret the possessor phrase de Juan as sort of left- dislocated within the whole nominal constituent containing the possessed phrase, thus 7.2 Amerindian substratum influence 595 maintaining a seeming parallelism with the Quechua word order. Similar left-dislocated possessors are found in many other languages, e.g. Papiamentu Wanchu su kas ‘John’s house’. De Granda (1997a) claims that the Peruvian pattern is found in northwestern Argentina as well. B. Clitic usage is a more complicated issue. While deviant object clitic usage has often been linked to Quechua influence, neither the phenomenon itself nor the possible Quechua source are very well circumscribed. The phenomenon includes redundant lo object clitics in relative clauses, as in:

(6) el hombre que lo v´ı the man that 3O.MS.SG I.saw ‘the man that I saw’

The use of a resumptive pronoun rather than a gap strategy in relative clauses may well be a result of surface simplification in a context of extensive bilingualism. A second type of example involves lo in main clauses, marking emphasis. Haboud de Ortega (1985), a rich but mostly descriptive study based on material from San Pedro de Casta, Huarochir´ı, Peru, contains examples such as:

(7) Usted lo siembra la papa con su abono y todo. you.CS 3O.MS.SG sow the potato(FE.SG) with 3P fertiliser and all ‘You sow the potatoes with their fertiliser and everything.’

Godenzzi (1986), an analysis of object clitic usage based on recordings from Puno, southern Peru, gives many examples as well (see also Godenzzi 1992):

(8) Lo ve´ıa las armas. 3O.MS.SG (s)he.saw the weapons(FE.PL) ‘(S)he saw the weapons.’

Cerr´on-Palomino (personal communication) suggests that redundant lo in Central Peru- vian Spanish is both formally and semantically related to the Quechua perfective verbal suffix -rqu-,which is pronounced as [ʔlu] in some dialects (cf. section 3.2.6). The suffix -rqu- often has a telic interpretation, implying some action with respect to an object. The formal similarity is limited to the Huanca region, but the semantic similarity may have caused a correspondence in a much wider area. A third cluster of phenomena includes the absence of an object clitic when its referent has been mentioned immediately before, in the same clause or in the discourse context:

(9) Nuestra m´usica no podemos dejar de lado. [compare dejarla our music(FE.SG) not we.can to.leave of side to.leave.3O.FE.SG] ‘We cannot leave our music aside.’ 596 7 The Spanish presence

Stratford (1989: 115) states that this is common for all kinds of speakers, monolingual and bilingual, urban and rural, alike. She also notes that the presence of another clitic, for instance, se,isafavourable environment for direct object omission. De Granda (1996) argues that absence of object clitics is frequent in northwestern Argentinian Spanish as well. There is frequent clitic doubling:

(10) Lo veoaJuan. [compare VeoaJuan. 3O.MS.SG I.see DA John I.see DA John ‘I see John.’ ‘I see John.’]

Furthermore, gender (lo/la) and number (le/lo, les/los) distinctions are often confused:

(11) Lo veoaMaria. [compare La veo... 3O.MS.SG I.see DA Mar´ıa 3O.FE.SG I.see ... ‘I see Mar´ıa.’ ‘I see her (Mar´ıa).’]

Note that here the ‘doubled’ clitic lo,which is analysed as masculine in standard Spanish, does not agree with the object, Mar´ıa,ingender. Ana Mar´ıa Escobar (1990), in a study of deixis, location, and object marking in the speech of bilinguals from Ayacucho, south-central Peru, looks at clitics in some detail, as well. Camacho et al. (1995) argue that the clitic lo in inalienable possessor constructions in Andean Spanish, as in (12), is a case of genitive clitic doubling:

(12) Lo amarran su pata del condor. 3O.SG.MS they.tie 3P leg(FE) of.the condor ‘They tie the condor’s leg.’

In Ecuador we find that clitics are used rather unsystematically in rural Spanish, and particularly that third-person object clitics such as le are often absent. This fea- ture is characteristic of the vernacular in general, and corresponds to Lozano’s ob- servation that third-person clitics are absent when their referent has been previously mentioned. Again, -rqu- is not present in Ecuadorian Quechua, which could lead to an explanation for the absence of lo in interlanguage and in the vernacular. Still, Cerr´on-Palomino’s explanation is too dialect-specific and does not cover all the occurrences of lo. More probable is that the fact that Ecuadorian Spanish is extremely leista, i.e. does not have lo as a verbal clitic at all, accounts for the absence of lo in Ecuadorian Quechua–Spanish interlanguage. 7.2 Amerindian substratum influence 597

It is clear from the discussion so far that the use of lo in Andean Spanish is a multi- faceted phenomenon, and needs more investigation. C. Object–verb sequences have been frequently noted. Very characteristic of Andean Spanish are sentences such as:

(13) AJuan conoc´ı. DA John I.knew ‘I knew John.’ (‘I made his acquaintance.’)

Here the object often precedes the verb, which is a marked pattern in standard Span- ish. Luj´an, Minaya and Sankoff (1981), using data from Cuzco, southern Peru (cf. also Minaya and Luj´an, 1982), primarily study word-order phenomena such as the OV orders in the light of typological universals. In contrast to Lozano and Puente, their study is based on children’s speech (three 5-, three 7- and three 9-year-olds, recorded one hour each, in an informal classroom setting) and provides quantitative data. The variables studied are both verb/object, adjective/noun, and possessor/possessed order. The results show that the 5-year-olds in the sample show 51 per cent SOV, 64 per cent possessor/possessed, and 91 per cent adjective/noun order, as in la bonita casa ‘the pretty house’. Fur- ther, for the other age groups there is a regular decrease of these word orders, which are slowly being replaced by the word orders characterising the regional standard: the 9-year-olds show only 30 per cent SOV, 33 per cent possessor/possessed and 38 per cent adjective/noun orders. Luj´an et al. claim that the pattern they find is the only one possible, given the typological characteristics of both Quechua and Spanish and the universal consistency hypothesis proposed by Hawkins (1979). Crucial is that the tran- sition from possessor/possessed to the reverse cannot take place without a transition from SOV to SVO; otherwise implicational universals are violated. Finally, Luj´an et al. mention a type of construction where the verb is doubled, producing a type of SVOV order:

(14) Conozco a los cabritos conozco. I.know DA the little.goats I.know ‘I know the little goats.’

Courtney (2000) argues that this duplication pattern is visible in Quechua itself, and is in fact a pragmatic strategy to denote emphasis. It occurs with elements other than verbs:

(15) Y ya no es loco ya. and already not he.is crazy already ‘And he isn’t crazy any more.’ 598 7 The Spanish presence

It is even possible to duplicate the element in a different language. In (16) kan is taken from Quechua, while the form it duplicates, hay,isSpanish: (16) Hay bastante-s fiesta-s ka-n. there.is enough-PL holiday-PL be-3S ‘There are many holidays.’

In recorded Ecuadorian spoken Spanish, there is also a tendency for highly frequent OV orders to be associated with Quechua–Spanish bilinguals, and VO order with middle- class Spanish monolinguals (Muysken 1984). This accords, in principle, with the main thrust of the findings of Luj´an et al., but it is striking that in all the recorded material there is no single case of a true SOV sequence, i.e. one with both subject and object present. What we find is OVS, OV, OSV, i.e. all cases where the order of the object preceding the verb could be due to object fronting, for focus:

(17) a. Papas comi´o. potatoes he.ate ‘He ate potatoes.’ b. Papas Juan comi´o. potatoes John he.ate ‘John ate potatoes.’ c. Papas comi´o, Juan. potatoes he.ate John ‘John ate potatoes.’ d. ∗Juan papas comi´o. John potatoes he.ate ‘John potatoes ate.’ Example (17d) is excluded because it is not possible in Spanish, even though it directly re- flects the usual Quechua order. Thus the word-order correspondence between rural Span- ish and Quechua may be one of superficial resemblance (in the OV sequences), rather than of deap-seated structural congruence. The case could still be made for Quechua influ- ence, through the increased incidence of word orders permitted in Spanish that are similar to Quechua. No cases of verb doubling have been noted so far in Ecuadorian Quechua. D. Irregular gender and number concord and irregular article usage are highly frequent, particularly in bilingual or lower-class monolingual speech. In Ecuador as well as Peru, plurals are only infrequently marked. Note that in Quechua, in contrast to Spanish, plural marking is optional. Definite and indefinite articles are frequently not present where they would be expected in regional standard contexts. This feature, while needing much more study, appears to be characteristic of vernacular Spanish in the area in general. 7.2 Amerindian substratum influence 599

Verb marking is highly irregular. In clear first-person-singular contexts, we find third- person forms, first-person-plural forms and irregular forms for ‘I went’:

(18) ju-´e went-3S.SG ‘he went’ jui-mos went-1S.PL ‘we went’ jui-ndo went-GR ‘going’ (lit. ‘went-ing’)

While other bilingual speakers in the community also show some cases of irregular verb marking, this is not a feature of non-standard Spanish on the whole, and it disappears rapidly with more advanced speakers. E. Preposition usage shows seemingly contradictory tendencies for different groups of speakers. Puente (1978) notes cases such as (19), in which a locative adverb is redundantly preceded by a locative preposition:

(19) En all´ı est´acreciendo la le˜na. in there is growing the firewood ‘There trees for firewood are growing.’

The Ecuadorian recorded Spanish data suggest that this feature may be due to Quechua semantic influence, but it is not present in early interlanguage. 36 per cent of the pre- positions obligatory in Spanish (39 out of 109 cases) have been deleted. This concerns primarily locative en (16 out of 33 cases) and directional a (17 out of 22 cases). This tendency diminishes quickly for the more advanced bilinguals, who may well extend the locative use of Quechua, where place adverbs (non-distinct from deictics) are marked with the demonstrative as well, to Spanish all´ı ‘there’. In Quechua we have chay-pi (/-L) F. Gerunds have been frequently noted, e.g. by Toscano Matteus (1953), Muysken (1984), Ni˜no-Murcia (1995) and Haboud (1996, 1998), who documents the use of the gerundive perfective construction by broad sectors of the population for Ecuador, by Cerr´on-Palomino (1972, 1976c, 1981) for Peru, and by de Granda (1995) for northwest- ern Argentina. Examples from incipient bilinguals in Ecuador are:

(20) Ya desyerbar terminando, a la yerba lo llevado a la casa. already to.weed finishing, DA the weed(FE) 3O.SG taken to the house ‘Having already finished weeding, I took the weeds to the house.’ (21) Yo saliendo de la escuela mi de entrar en colegio. I leaving of the school me/my of to.enter in high.school ‘After leaving school I am going to enter high school.’

Menges (1980), the first bilingual acquisition study carried out in Ecuador, is based on the application of a culturally adapted and expanded bilingual syntax measure to twelve 600 7 The Spanish presence

Indian and twelve non-Indian first graders. The variable studied is the form and function of the main verb, whether in inflected, infinitive, or gerund form. The analysis of the interview data indicated that the Indian L2 learners were operating with a simplified verb system having the gerund as its base form (1980: 105). For stable bilinguals, the gerund is not so much the base form for main-clause verb usage, but rather a marker for adverbial clauses. G. A number of studies draw attention to sentential particles. There are cases of the Quechua topic marker -ka occurring in Ecuadorian Spanish:

(22) Ah´ı-ka barrio chiquito. there-TO village small ‘Over there is a small village.’ (23) Quedamos-ka lo que da la gana come hago. we.stay-TO 3O.SG what gives the feeling eat I.make ‘If we stay, I will prepare to eat whatever comes to our minds.’

More prevalent are Spanish sentential particles used in a Quechua-derived or Quechua- like fashion. We find enclitic tan (from Spanish tambi´en ‘also’) as a negative emphatic marker or as an indefinite marker in Ecuador:

(24) a. nada m´as-tan nothing more-AD ‘nothing else’

b. Onde-tan? has ido? where-AD you.have gone ‘Wherever did you go to?’

This use of tan directly resembles the semantic range of Quechua -pis/-pas ‘and, also, indefinite, emphatic’. It may well be that the way tan is used is a calque on Quechua. Just like the topic marker -ka, this phenomenon is not limited to bilinguals, but it certainly is stigmatised as lower-class rural speech. Laprade mentions a number of particles occurring in La Paz Spanish the use of which may have been influenced by Aymara (1981: 216–19), such as no m´as ‘just’, and pues ‘then’. An example of the latter would be:

(25) Qu´? e cosa pues quieres? what thing then you.want ‘What then do you want?’

The trouble is that these elements have such a wide diffusion in rural Spanish that much more specific argumentation than given would be needed to make their Aymara base conclusive. 7.2 Amerindian substratum influence 601

Another problem is that Aymara and Quechua have so many structural and semantic parallels, as was shown in chapter 3, that the use of many elements in Spanish could be influenced by both or either language. A case in point is the Spanish pluperfect to mark the sudden discovery tense, something to which we will turn shortly, and the use of siempre ‘always’ in the sense of ‘after all’, as in:

(26) Tengo que irme siempre. I.have that to.go.away.1O.SG always ‘I have to go after all.’

This feature has been reported for La Paz Spanish by Laprade (1981: 218), as modelled on the Aymara emphatic marker -pini/-puni, and for Cochabamba Spanish by Herrero (1969), as modelled on Quechua -puni.Inthis case, substrate influences from various languages may have reinforced one another. Another source for the use of siempre could be the Quechua suffix -raq, generally glossed as ‘still’. On the precise meaning of siempre and other discourse markers in different Andean regions more comparative study is needed. A case where specific Aymara influence may be involved is the use of pero ‘but’ in sentence-final position (Laprade 1981: 219), as in:

(27) Ya! hablas aymara pero! already you.speak Aymara but ‘But you speak Aymara already!’

The source for this usage would be the Aymara objector suffix -raki. H. In all varieties of Quechua there is a special tense to mark events which took place unbeknownst to the speaker; Adelaar (1977) terms this the sudden discovery tense, marked with -sqa or a similar form. It is used in narrative but also to express surprise, etc. In Andean Spanish the category is expressed with present perfect haber with past participle (Ecuador) or pluperfect haber with past participle (Peru and Bolivia):

(28) a. (Ecuador) b.(Peru and Bolivia) !

Qu´! e rico ha sido! Qu´e rico hab´ıa sido! how good it.has been how good it.had been ‘This is really good! (said to the host)’

This concludes a preliminary survey of possible Amerindian features in Andean Spanish. The data are sometimes contradictory between different studies and a far from clear picture emerges. This may be due to differences in focus of research and data-collection procedures, to differences between the varieties of Quechua involved, or to differences in the selection of interlanguage features which are absorbed into the vernacular. 602 7 The Spanish presence

The convergence process, which results from bilingualism over a long period of time, provides a way for the L2 learner to structure his interlanguage grammar. Where no linguistic convergence between Quechua and Spanish has taken place (e.g. person– number marking, marking of grammatical relations, subordination), the L2 learner will produce idiosyncratic and irregular forms of interlanguage structures, involving deletion, overgeneralisations, paratactic structures and the like. Where we do find convergence phenomena (word order, gerunds, tense marking to some extent), the acquisition process is more regular: the L2 learner falls quickly into the groove as it were, and starts to behave as a member of a speech community. We hope the discussion of individual variables has substantiated this distinction.

7.3 Language mixture and pidginisation in the Andes and the Amazon basin Several contact varieties have emerged out of the intermixing between Spanish and the native languages. We will briefly mention two of them here: Media Lengua, spoken in various parts of Ecuador, and Amazon Spanish pidgin. The variety of Media Lengua (lit. ‘half language’ or ‘halfway language’) described here is spoken in parts of the province of Cotopaxi in central Ecuador (Muysken 1979, 1981b, 1986, 1997a). Other varieties have been documented for Ca˜nar and Saraguro in southern Ecuador. Linguistically speaking, Media Lengua is essentially Quechua with the vast majority of its stems replaced by Spanish forms. This process of replace- ment is commonly called relexification. Two examples of Media Lengua utterances are given below, with the (b) examples presenting the regional Quechua equivalent, and the (c) examples the regional Spanish equivalent.

(29) a. Unu fabur-ta pidi-nga-bu bini-xu-ni. (Media Lengua) one favour-AC ask-FN-B come-PR-1S.SG ‘I come to ask you a favour.’ b. sukˇ fabur-da manya-nga-busamu-xu-ni. ˇ (Quechua) one favour-AC ask-FN-B come-PR-1S.SG ‘I come to ask you a favour.’ c. Vengo para pedir un favor. (Spanish) I.come in.order.to ask.IF one favour ‘I come to ask you a favour.’

It is clear that (a) has resulted from putting the phonological shapes of the words in (c) into the lexical entries in (b). Thus sukˇ is replaced by unu, man ya- by pidi-, etc. Several things should be noted. First, we get an emphatic form of the indefinite article in Media Lengua, unu, rather than Spanish unemphatic un. Second, the Spanish irregular verb 7.3 Language mixture and pidginisation 603 form vengo appears in a regularised stem form bini. Third, the Quechua rule voicing the accusative case marker -ta to -da after fabur has not applied in Media Lengua; Quechua dialectological evidence suggests that this is a recent rule. Fourth, what is peculiar about Media Lengua is not so much that it contains Spanish words (many dialects of Quechua do as well), but that all Quechua words, including all core vocabulary, have been replaced. Fifth, the Spanish forms have been adapted phonologically to Quechua; mid vowels have been replaced by high vowels. Quechua word order and morphology have been retained. A similar example is:

(30) a. Kuyi-buk yirba nuwabi-ˇska (Media Lengua) guinea.pig-B grass not.be.there-SD.3S.SG ‘There turns out to be no grass for the guinea-pigs.’ b. Kuyi-buk khiwa ilya-ˇska (Quechua) guinea.pig-B grass not.be.there-SD.3S.SG ‘There turns out to be no grass for the guinea-pigs.’ c. No hay hierba para los cuyes (Spanish) not there.is grass for the guinea.pigs ‘There is no grass for the guinea-pigs.’

Note that the Quechua word kuyi ‘guinea-pig’ appears in the local Spanish as well. The Media Lengua verb maintains the Quechua-specific sudden discovery tense marking -ˇska. The Quechua negative existential verb stem ilya- has been relexified with a newly formed ‘frozen’ stem nuwabi-, derived from Spanish no and haber ‘have’. The Spanish verb ‘have’ has an impersonal form hay which also has existential meaning. These examples illustrate that: (a) Media Lengua is essentially the product of replacing the phonological shapes of Quechua stems with Spanish forms, maintaining the rest of the Quechua structure; (b) The Spanish forms chosen have undergone regularisation and adaptation to Quechua morphophonology. (c) Media Lengua is conservative in sometimes reflecting earlier stages in Quechua pronunciation. (d) It is not made up on the spot every time it is spoken. (e) The occurrence of Spanish strong alternants such as unu in stead of un, and of frozen composites such as nuwabi- is an indication that we do not have a simple process of vocabulary replacement here. The Amazon Spanish pidgin, although clearly showing non-Spanish (possibly Shuar) features, is more the result of simplification than of relexification. There were and are Spanish pidgins spoken in the western Amazon basin, and also by the Cayapa on the 604 7 The Spanish presence

Pacific coast in northern Ecuador. Simson (1886) in a travel account and Gnerre (1975) have provided some data on varieties of this pidgin. Sample sentences are:

(31) Ese canoa andando Consacunti cuando ser´a llegando ese Tonantins tiene? that canoe going (to) Consacunti when will.be arriving that Tonantins has.got (roughly) ‘This canoe going along to the Consacunti when will it be reaching the Tonantins?’ (32) Ese Consacunti, Carapan´a llegando, m´as.lejos ser´a tiene ese Carapan´a, Tonantins llegando? that Consacunti Carapan´aarriving farther will.be has.got that Carapan´a Tonantins arriving (roughly) ‘Arriving in Consacunti and Carapan´a, will it be further from Carapan´atoTonantins?’ (33) Tuyo no sabiendo le˜na cortando. yours not knowing wood cutting ‘You do not know how to cut wood.’

Features that can be identified on the basis of Gnerre’s and Simson’s pidgin data are that the verb is in the gerundive form and a verb form est´a meaning ‘to be, to be characterised by’. In Simson’s data it is not the verb estar that is overgeneralised in its use, but rather the future of the verb ser, i.e. ser´a lit. ‘he will be’. There is SOV word order, with the main sentence verb following the subordinate sentence verb (consistent with SOV basic order). Prepositions tend to be absent. We find the generalised use of Spanish tiene ‘has got’, probably as an emphatic marker. The Spanish demonstrative pronoun ese ‘that’ is used as definite marker. While in Gnerre’s data the second-person pronoun is vos ‘(informal) you’, Simson has tuyo ‘(intimate) yours’.

7.4 African influences From the very beginning, the Spanish conquistadores brought African slaves with them to the Andes. While the black population did not become the dominant one, as in the Caribbean, Africans were forcibly settled in most Andean countries. This includes not only Venezuela and Colombia, where their presence and influence is clearest, but also the coastal and Ecuador, and, for instance, the silver mines of Potos´ıin Bolivia, at an altitude of over 4,000 metres. While only one clearly distinct new language emerged out of African slavery in the area we are concerned with, , other varieties of Spanish in different regions clearly display African traits. Romero (1988) shows that this influence on the Peruvian Spanish lexicon has been quite extensive. 7.5 Language planning and bilingual education 605

Palenquero is spoken in one village near Cartagena in northern Colombia, San Basilio del Palenque (Friedemann and Pati˜no 1983; Megenney 1986). It descends from the language spoken by the slaves who built the fortifications of Cartagena during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and a group of whom escaped in 1603. Isolation has helped maintain the language, but now all remaining speakers are bilingual. Indeed, many utterances contain Spanish elements (given in capitals in the fragment presented here; Bickerton and Escalante 1970):

(34) no. ma´ılo mi kel´enu.EL NO ME kel´emias´ına. w´eno ki i par´ıun mon´a TO LOS A ...anda, panda ga´ına, ke ta kum´etoal´o no. husband me want not. he not me want me like that. good that I bear a child all they...goon,scare hen, that is eat all rice ‘No. My husband does not want it. He does not like me like that. It is good that I bear a child every year....Goon,chase the hen away, it eats all the rice.’

It is clear that the basic vocabulary derives from Spanish, but there is also an important Bantu component (Bickerton and Escalante 1970). In the coastal regions of southern Colombia and northern Ecuador, Nari˜no and Es- meraldas, respectively, non-standard Afro-American varieties of Spanish, are spoken. Lipski (1987) considers these as non-creoles; they are only different from other varieties of local Spanish in non-core lexicon and pronunciation, and even in the latter have many features of coastal (Andalucian) Spanish in general. However, the variety spoken by descendants of slaves of highland Jesuit plantations in the Chota valley, Imbabura and Carchi provinces in northern Ecuador, does exhibit a few remnants which point to a cre- ole or partly creolised antecessor. First, -s is often deleted word-finally, but not in other contexts, while in coastal Spanish it is frequently aspirated or deleted in all contexts. At the same time, the non-Afro-American surrounding varieties of highland Spanish exhibit no s-deletion to speak of. Furthermore, there are cases of improper agreement both in the noun phrase and in the verb phrase. These are characteristic of Quechua– Spanish bilinguals, as we have seen, but not of monolinguals such as the chote˜nos.From all this, Lipski (1987) concludes that we must distinguish between traits which Afro- American Spanish may simply have inherited from coastal Spanish in general, and cases where there is evidence for antecedent creole varieties, the case in point being the Chota valley.

7.5 Language planning and policy with respect to the Amerindian languages and to bilingual education The various Andean countries differ in the legal status of the native languages, both due to the ethnic constitution of the different nations and to their political systems and degree of ethnic mobilisation. Nonetheless, it should be clear that everywhere the Amerindian 606 7 The Spanish presence languages are oppressed, to use Alb´o’s term (1977). In spite of the secondary role that some Amerindian language may play, the dominant role is reserved for Spanish (see L´opez and Jung 1998 for a useful overview). It should not be forgotten, and this is stressed again by Jung (1991), that a so-called ‘ problem’ is really a problem of the majority, and of the degree to which this majority is willing to accommodate and respect other languages. Bilingualism is all too often a one-sided affair, with speakers of a dominated language learning the dominant one, and not the other way around. When we talk about bilingual education for native groups in the Andes, two distinc- tions are quite important. (a) Projects are experimental in status, and cease when the evaluation has been completed or when the funding has dried up. Programmes are more permanent, and reflect the commitment of educational planning authorities towards a given practice. (b) In transitional models the non-dominant language has an intermediate role, primarily to help the child adjust to the dominant ‘national’ culture and language, which are diffused through the schools. Often use of the Amerindian language will be limited to a few subjects in the first three years or so. In maintenance models the educa- tional programme is geared towards the stimulation of the non-dominant language and culture. Use of the Amerindian language will be much more extensive and continues through the years of schooling. This requires both more widespread literacy in the Amerindian languages and the development of these languages as written languages (L´opez and Jung 1987, 1998). Hornberger (1988, 1989) discusses the complex role of education, even if conducted in the native language, in Amerindian communities. We will return to some general issues after surveying the situation in the different Andean countries. Venezuela.InVenezuela roughly 1 per cent of the population speaks an Amerindian language. Spanish is the only official language, but since 1979 there is legislation that supports bilingual education programmes (von Gleich 1989a: 357–63; Toledo1989). The official policy is towards transitional programmes, stressing linkage to la vida nacional ‘the life of the nation’, but there are initiatives, particularly in the Upper Amazon basin (Eguillor 1989; Jim´enez Tur´on 1989), for maintenance programmes, with the support of church groups and tribal organisations (Mosonyi 1972, 1987). Colombia.AsinVenezuela, Spanish is the only official language of Colombia, where about 2 per cent speaks an Amerindian language (von Gleich 1989a: 215–29). Legislation dating from 1978 outlines a type of bilingual education geared towards language maintenance, with strong community input. There are two centres for the training of Indian teachers. Under the general denominator of etnoeducaci´on there are a number of programmes, run by Amerindian organisations, in part in collaboration with church groups. The constitution of 1991 has provided new rights for indigenous groups. 7.5 Language planning and bilingual education 607

Twoorganisations have been quite active in promoting the further study and documen- tation of the Colombian Amerindian languages: the Summer Institute of Linguistics and the CCELA (Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes) at the Universidad de los Andes (cf. chapter 2). Ecuador.InEcuador perhaps as many as a quarter of the population may consider itself to be Indian, but not all speak an Amerindian language. While Spanish is the official language, the constitution recognises Quechua and the other Amerindian languages as part of the culture of the nation. A law dating from 1981 formally acknowledges the need for bilingual intercultural education in predominantly Indian areas, and it is safe to say that in Ecuador bilingual education is more advanced than in the other Andean countries. Educational programmes are functioning in most Indian areas in the country,and there are four teacher training colleges specialising in bilingual education: two in the lowlands, and two in the highlands. There is a standardised variety termed quichua unificado ‘unified Quechua’. King (2000) suggests that tensions emerge between this unified variety and local varieties, perceived as more authentic. These tensions are probably inherent in any standardisation effort, but are of particular importance in the fragile situation of the standardisation of an Amerindian language variety. An important role in the propagation of a unified Quechua was played by radio stations such as La Voz de los Andes (The Voice of the Andes). Peru.InPeru the official language is Spanish, while Quechua and Aymara can also be used officially, and the other native languages form part of the cultural heritage of the nation as well, according to article 83 of the constitution (L´opez 1990). Discrimination on the basis of language is specifically prohibited, and each person has the legal right to use her or his own language in dealings with the judiciary system. Thus, for a while, Peru accorded the highest legal status to the Amerindian languages of all of South America (von Gleich 1989a: 318–55; see Mannheim 1984 for a historical account of the development of language policies in Peru). Nonetheless, daily life is different for most of the almost four million speakers of Amerindian languages in Peru. In fact, languages such as Quechua are rarely used officially, though it is spoken widely, even in migrant neighbourhoods in urban centres. Myers (1973) is an interesting early study of the use of Quechua in the barriadas (popular neighbourhoods) of Lima and her results have been confirmed in later research. Gugenberger (1995) illustrates the mixed feelings that bilingual migrants to the city of Arequipa have about their native language and Spanish. Von Gleich (1989b) reports on a study in which attitudes towards Quechua and Spanish in the Ayacucho area are studied, conjointly with W.W¨olck, with ten-year intervals from 1968 onward. In 1984 legislation was passed which made bilingual education possible, leading to the ‘progressive Hispanicisation’ of the Indian children. There are three centres for the training of bilingual teachers: in Iquitos, supported by CAAAP (Centro Amaz´onico de 608 7 The Spanish presence

Antropolog´ıa y Aplicaci´on Pract´ıca); Puno, founded by the German-funded Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue; and Yarinacocha, founded by the Summer In- stitute of Linguistics. A number of bilingual education projects have been set up. In Ayacucho there have been Quechua–Spanish activities, with some interruptions, since 1964, directed primarily at the early grades of schooling. In 1983 a project started on the R´ıo Tambo, directed at the Ash´aninca. Finally, in Puno a project ran between 1977 and 1988 which was one of the largest in the Andes, in terms of staff, publications, etc. (cf. section 3.2.12). It has been amply documented; an external evaluation of the project is presented in Hornberger (1988, 1989). Bolivia.Even though almost half of the population usually speaks a different lan- guage in Bolivia (Alb´o 1980), the only official language is Spanish (von Gleich 1989a: 204–14). An impression of the complex Quechua–Spanish bilingual setting in the Cochabamba area is given in Alb´o (1968, 1974), and Alb´o (1995) provides an ex- haustive survey, based on census-data, of the multilingual situation in the early 1990s. Present-day legislation only mentions Amerindian languages with respect to (adult) al- phabetisation and basic education programmes. Nonetheless, educational planning does include bilingual programmes as one of its objectives. There are three centres for the training of bilingual teachers, one focusing on Aymara, one on Quechua and one on Guaran´ı. Chile. There are large groups of speakers of Amerindian languages, particularly Ma- puche, but Spanish is the only official language in Chile. Such legislation as there is specifically referring to native groups focuses on integration in national society. There are no specific training programmes for bilingual teachers. In the rural education pro- gramme for the Mapuche area the language itself is not taught (von Gleich, 1989a: 230–4). Argentina.Argentina has a small but sizeable minority (over 300,000) of speakers of Amerindian languages. Spanish is the official language. There is legislation that supports a generally transitional model of bilingual education, but there are no training programmes for bilingual teachers (von Gleich, 1989a: 198–202). Messineo (1989) describes a programme training ‘auxiliary’ Toba teachers, in order to set up bilingual schools.

7.6 Andean languages in the modern world Nelly Ramos Pizarro (1989: 40) writes in an article on the bilingual competence of Mapuche secondary school students: ‘In what will Mapudungun be useful for a girl that will develop her whole life in a huinca (white) context?’ This is the problem in a nutshell facing bilingual education in the Andes. Schools cannot be thought of as islands in a society otherwise hostile to native languages and cultural values, and neither can educational reform replace social and cultural reform. 7.6 Andean languages in the modern world 609

In a number of articles in the journal Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on mathematics classes in native languages are discussed in great detail. How do we adapt the numerical systems of the native languages to the requirements of modern mathematics teaching? How do we develop a new meta-vocabulary in these languages? Some authors struggle on with the set-theoretical mathematics already abandoned in the western school systems from which it was imported into the Andes in the 1970s. Ingenious though the solutions presented are, the question is how the mathematical knowledge inculcated in Shuar or Aymara will serve an adolescent negotiating in the local Sunday feria (market). A related issue is how the reading knowledge in the Amerindian languages will be put to use in primarily oral societies. An ever larger group of Indian children grows up learning poor Spanish at home, rather than the Amerindian languages. For this group a transitional model does not make much sense, since their primary language is the nationally dominant one. Thus we need to think of different models, perhaps maintenance or recovery models, when we think of bilingual intercultural education. Some such models have been sketched for North America, e.g. in Craig (1991) and Watahomigie and Yamamoto (1992). Talking about Andean languages in the modern world runs the risk of making the error sketched in the beginning of this book, when we discussed the train image from L´evi-Strauss’s Race et histoire.Ofcourse, the Andean languages are as much in history and part of history as the European languages. Chiquito was used by the Bolivian army as a secret code in the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay. Similarly, Aymara is being promoted in La Paz as an ideal computer language, due to its highly regular and transparent agglutinative morphology, by Ivan Guti´errez. Still, there can be no doubt that for many Andean languages, to be part of the modern world simply means not to be there at all. We have listed enough cases of linguistic decay and threatened ethnic and physical survival in this book to make the grim picture sketched in Michael Krauss (1992) applicable to South America as well: about 90 per cent of the languages spoken now may disappear in the next century, and indeed many of the languages are disappearing at an alarming rate. However, there are some cases where Amerindian communities have managed to regain sufficient control of their environment and local autonomy to ensure that their language has at least a chance of surviving. Appendix

Inventory of languages and language families of the Andean region

The following list contains an overview of the languages and language families rep- resented in the Andean region (including the Paraguayan languages and some other languages not systematically treated in this book). For some languages it also includes alternative names and names used by ethnolinguistic groups for referring to themselves. Approximative speaker numbers (s.) are given for languages still in use, but it should be remarked that many sources do not make a specific distinction between the number of speakers of a language and the number of members of an ethnic group. For instance, the Colombian statistics usually refer to the totality of ethnic communities and may be too high when used as an indication of language retention. By contrast, Peruvian figures may well be too low because they are based on the results of a census involving ques- tions on language use, of which the answer depends on the willingness of individuals to supply the requested information. Most importantly, both the estimates of speaker numbers and of ethnic group membership may differ widely according to the sources. In this overview, minimum and maximum estimates (separated by a hyphen) are given in cases of contradiction. For very specific high estimates, round figures may be given instead of the original numbers. Sources that have been consulted for the statistical information are, for Argentina, Censabella (1999); for Colombia, Arango and S´anchez (1998), in an extract kindly provided by Jon Landaburu, and the website Etnias de Colombia (http://www. indigenascolombia.org); for Ecuador, Juncosa (2000); for Paraguay, Meli´a (1997); for Peru, Brack and Y´a˜nez (1997), Pozzi-Escot (1998) and Chirinos Rivera (2001); for Venezuela, Gonz´alez N´˜ a˜nez (2000) and Mosonyi and Mosonyi (2000). For Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, we have furthermore used the online information collected by Mily Crevels for the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages (http://www.tooyoo.l. u-tokyo.ac-jp/Redbook/SAmerica). An online source for Chile was the website Lenguas y Culturas de Chile (http://rehue.csociales.uchile.cl). More specific sources, such as the online information of the Cabeceras Aid Project (http://www.onr.com/cabeceras), administrated by Christine Beier and Lev Michael, have been consulted for particular languages. (Online sources updated for May 2003.)

610 Inventory of Andean languages and language families 611

Aguano: unclassified. Peru (Loreto); extinct. Andaqu´ı or Aguanunga: isolate. Colombia (Caquet´a, Huila); reportedly extinct; possibly related to P´aez. Andoque: isolate. Colombia (Amazonas): 518 s. Araucanian: language family, two languages. Huilliche: Chile (Los Lagos); a few thousand speakers. Mapuche or Mapudungun:Argentina (Buenos Aires, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuqu´en, R´ıo Negro), c. 40,000 s.; Chile (Araucan´ıa, Biob´ıo, Los Lagos), speaker estimates range from 200,000 to 500,000 s. Araw´a: language family, one language in Per´u; more in Brazil. Culina:Peru (Ucayali): 250–400 s.; more in Brazil. Arawakan: language family. Achagua: Colombia (Meta): 280 s.; extinct in Venezuela. Amuesha or Yanesha :Peru(Hu´anuco, Jun´ın, Pasco): 1,750–7,000 s. Ash´aninca (including Ash´eninca and Campa): Peru (Ayacucho, Cuzco, Jun´ın, Pasco, Ucayali): 30,150–52,000 s.; more in Brazil. Baniva del Guain´ıa: Colombia (Guain´ıa): a few; Venezuela (Amazonas): 1,130 s. Bar´e:Venezuela (Amazonas): a few; more in Brazil (probably extinct). Baure: Bolivia (Beni): 13 s. (in ethnic group of 630). Cabiyar´ı: Colombia (Vaup´es): 277 s. Campa Caquinte or Poyenisati:Peru (Cuzco, Jun´ın): 230–300 s. Campa Nomatsiguenga:Peru (Jun´ın): 4,000–5,530 s. Chamicuro:Peru (Loreto): 2 s. (in ethnic group of 126). Curripaco (includes Baniva del Isana): Colombia (Guain´ıa): 7,066 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas): 2,760–4,000 s.; more in Brazil. Guajiro or Wayuunaiki: Colombia (Guajira): 144,000 s.; Venezuela(Zulia): 180,000 s. (cf. Alvarez 1994). I˜napari:Peru (Madre de Dios): 4 s. Kugapakori or Pucapacuri or Nanti:Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios): 250 s., possibly more uncontacted (information Cabeceras Aid Project). Machiguenga:Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios): 5,910–8,680 s. Machineri: Bolivia (Pando): 140 s.; more in Brazil. Mashco-Piro:Peru (Madre de Dios): limited contact, no data. Mojo (includes the varieties Ignaciano and Trinitario): Bolivia (Beni): over 10,000 s. Paraujano or A˜nun or A˜nuu:Venezuela (Zulia): 20–30 s. Paunaca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): a few. Piapoco:Colombia (Meta, Guan´ıa, Vichada): 4,466 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas): 1,167–3,000 s. 612 Appendix

Piro or Yine:Peru (Cuzco, Loreto, Madre de Dios, Ucayali): 2,150–3,500 s. Res´ıgaro:Peru (Loreto): 11 s. in 1971 (in mixed group with Bora and Huitoto). Tariana: Colombia (Vaup´es): ethnic group of 332; more in Brazil; 100 s. in both countries (Aikhenvald 1999). Warekena:Venezuela (Amazonas): 400–500 s.; more in Brazil. Yavitero:Venezuela (Amazonas): 1 s.; similar to Baniva del Guain´ıa. Yucuna: Colombia (Amazonas): 500 s. Presumably extinct languages belonging to this family: Amarizana: Colombia (Casanare). Apolista or Lapachu: Bolivia (La Paz). Caquet´ıo:Venezuela (Apure, Falc´on, Lara, Yaracuy);Dutch Antilles (Aruba, Bonaire, Cura¸cao). Chan´e:Argentina (Salta); Bolivia (Santa Cruz); language shifted to Chiriguano. Gar´u or Guar´u: Colombia (Amazonas). Maipure: Colombia (Vichada). Paiconeca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Saraveca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Atacame˜no or Kunza: isolate. Argentina (Salta); Chile (Antofagasta); possibly also Bolivia (Potos´ı); possible subgroups in Argentina: Apatama, Casavindo, Churumata, Cochinoca; reportedly extinct. Aymaran: language family, three languages. Aymara: Bolivia (Cochabamba, La Paz, Oruro, Potos´ı): 1,600,000 s.; Chile (Tarapac´a): 16,000 s.; Peru (Moquegua, Puno, Tacna): 466,000 s. Cauqui:Peru (Lima): 11 s. in larger community. Jaqaru:Peru (Lima): 725 s. Bagua or Patag´on de Bagua: unclassified. Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca); extinct. Barbacoan: language family, five languages. Awa Pit or Cuaiquer: Colombia (Nari˜no): ethnic group of 13,000; Ecuador (Carchi): 2,000–3,000; percentage of speakers unknown. Chapalaachi or Chachi or Cayapa or Nigua: Ecuador (Esmeraldas): 7,600 s. Guambiano: Colombia (Cauca): ethnic group of 20,780, mostly speakers. Totor´o: Colombia (Cauca): 4 s. in community of 3,600. Tsafiki or Colorado: Ecuador (Pichincha): 2,000 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Barbacoa: Colombia (Nari˜no). Cara: Ecuador (Imbabura, Pichincha); affiliation uncertain. Coconuco: Colombia (Cauca). Pasto (including Muellamues): Colombia (Nari˜no); Ecuador (Carchi). Sindagua or Malla: Colombia (Nari˜no). Inventory of Andean languages and language families 613

Betoi: language family. Colombia (Arauca, Casanare); Venezuela(Apure); several ethnic groups: Airico, Betoi, Ele, Jirara, Lolaca, Situfa, etc.; the languages are extinct. Bora-Huitoto: language family consisting of two distinct subfamilies. Boran: Bora: Colombia (Amazonas): 646 s.; Peru (Loreto): 2,000 s. Mira˜na: Colombia (Amazonas): 660 s. Muinane: Colombia (Amazonas): 547 s. Huitotoan: Huitoto (subgroups M-in-ica, Murui, N-ipode): Colombia (Amazonas, Caquet´a, Putumayo): 6,245 s.; Peru (Loreto): 1,133–1,917 s. Nonuya: Colombia (Amazonas): 2 s. Ocaina: Colombia (Amazonas): 126 s.; Peru (Loreto): 54–188 s. Cahuapanan: language family with two surviving languages; possibly related to Jivaroan. Chayahuita:Peru (Loreto, San Mart´ın): 7,875–13,717 s. Jebero:Peru (Loreto): 500–2,500 s.; language becoming obsolescent. Probably extinct language belonging to this group: Cahuapana:Peru (Loreto). Canichana: isolate. Bolivia (Beni). 3 semi-speakers in community of 583 (field data Crevels). Candoshi: language family with one surviving language. Candoshi or Murato or Shapra:Peru (Loreto): 1,900–3,000 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Chirino:Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca). Rabona: Ecuador (Zamora-Chinchipe); affiliation uncertain. Ca˜nar-Puruh´a: putative language family; two languages, both extinct. Ca˜nar: Ecuador (Azuay, Ca˜nar, Chimborazo, El Oro, Loja). Puruh´a: Ecuador (Bol´ıvar, Chimborazo, Tungurahua). Cariban: language family. Carijona or Guaque or Hianacoto or Umaua: Colombia (Amazonas, Guaviare): 30 s. Japreria:Venezuela (Zulia): number included in Yucpa. Yukpa or Yuco or Motilones mansos: Colombia (Cesar): 3,529 s.; Venezuela (Zulia): 1,500–3,500 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Op´on–Carare: Colombia (Santander); probably extinct; maybe two languages. Patag´on:Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca). Extinct languages which may have belonged to this family: Muzo–Colima: Colombia (Boyac´a, Cundinamarca). Panche: Colombia (Cundinamarca, Tolima). 614 Appendix

Pijao: Colombia (Tolima); strong Cariban influence, but language probably not Cariban. Cayuvava: isolate. Bolivia (Beni): 2 semi-speakers in group of 800 (field data Crevels). Chacha: unclassified. Peru (Amazonas, possibly also in La Libertad and San Mart´ın); extinct. Chapacuran: language family; one language in Bolivia. Mor´e or Itenez: Bolivia (Beni): 76 s., including 21 active speakers (field data Angenot de Lima). Extinct languages that belonged or may have belonged to this family: Chapacura or Huachi: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Herisebocona: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Kitemoca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz); possible speakers left. Napeca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Rocorona: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Charr´uan: language family (languages: Chan´a, Charr´ua, Guenoa or Minuane): Argentina (Entre R´ıos); Uruguay; all extinct; possibly related to Guaicuruan. Other extinct ethnic groups of Entre R´ıos and Santa Fe (Argentina) that may have been associated with this language family: Carcara˜n´a, Colastin´e, Corond´a, Mbegu´a, Mepene, Quiloaz´a, Timb´u. Chibchan: language family; more languages in Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Bar´ı or Dobocubi or Motilones bravos: Colombia (Cesar, Norte de Santander): 3,530 s.; Venezuela (Zulia): 1,500 s. Chimila or Ette taara: Colombia (Magdalena): 900 s. Cuna or Tule: Colombia (Antioquia, Choc´o): 1,166 s.; more in Panama. Damana or Arsario or Guamaca or Malayo or Marocasero or Sanj´a or Wiwa: Colombia (Cesar): 1,850 s. Ika or Arhuaco or B´ıntukua: Colombia (Cesar, Magdalena): 14,300 s. Kogui or K´aggaba: Colombia (Magdalena): 9,765 s. Uw Cuwa or Tunebo: Colombia (Arauca, Boyac´a, Norte de Santander, Santander): 7,000 s.; Venezuela (Apure): some. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Cat´ıo Chibcha: Colombia (Antioquia). Duit: Colombia (Boyac´a). Kanku´ı or Kankuamo or At´anquez: Colombia (Cesar). Muisca: Colombia (Cundinamarca, Distrito Capital). Nutabe: Colombia (Antioquia). Chiquitano or Bes-iro: isolate. Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 5,855 s. in ethnic group of c. 47,000; varieties: Churapa, Sansimoniano, Tao. Inventory of Andean languages and language families 615

Chocoan: language family; two languages. Ember´a or Cat´ıo or Cham´ı or Saija: Colombia (Antioquia, Caldas, Cauca, Choc´o, C´ordoba, Risaralda): 71,400 s.; Ecuador: 60 s.; more in Panama. Waunana or Wounaan or Noanama: Colombia (Choc´o, Valle del Cauca): 7,960 s. Chon: language family with one surviving language. Tehuelche or Aonek’enk:Argentina (Santa Cruz): 4 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: G¨un¨una Yajich or Puelche:Argentina (Chubut, R´ıo Negro). Haush:Argentina (Tierra del Fuego). Selk nam or Ona:Argentina (Tierra del Fuego); Chile (Magallanes). Tehues or Teushen:Argentina (Chubut, Santa Cruz). Extinct language that possibly belonged to this family: Querand´ı:Argentina (Buenos Aires, La Pampa). Other language names associated with this group: Chechehet, Divihet, Het, Hongote, Taluhet, etc. Chono: unclassified. Chile (Ais´en); extinct; affiliation with Kawesqar suggested. Cof´an or A’inga´e: isolate. Ecuador (Sucumb´ıos): 800 s.; Colombia (Nari˜no, Putumayo): 1,457 s. Comeching´on: unclassified. Argentina (C´ordoba); extinct; possibly a cluster of lan- guages, rather than a single one; subgroups: Camiare, Henia;affiliation with Huarpean suggested. Copall´en: unclassified. Peru (Amazonas); extinct. Cueva: unclassified language of eastern Panama; extinct. Culli: unclassified. Peru (Ancash, Cajamarca, La Libertad); presumably extinct. Diaguita or Kak´an: unclassified language or language family. Argentina (Catamarca, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero, Tucum´an); Chile (Atacama, Coquimbo). Many subgroups (Calchaqu´ı, Capay´an, Hualf´ın, Pular, Quilme, Tolomb´on, Yacampis, etc.); extinct; extent of internal diversification unknown. Esmeralde˜no or Atacame: isolate. Ecuador (Esmeraldas); extinct. Guahiboan: language family, four languages. Cuiba: Colombia (Arauca): 2,275 s.; some in Venezuela (Apure). Guayabero: Colombia (Meta, Guaviare): 1,060 s. Hitn¨u or Macaguane: Colombia (Arauca): 542 s. Sikuani or Guahibo or Hiwi (includes Amor´ua, Chiricoa, Masiguare and Tsiripu): Colombia. (Arauca, Casanare, Guain´ıa, Meta, Vichada): 21,410 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas, Apure): 9,220 s. Guaicuruan: language family, three languages (and one in Brazil: Kadiw´eu). Mocov´ı:Argentina (Chaco, Santa Fe): 3,000–5,000 s. Pilag´a:Argentina (Formosa): 2,000–5,000 s. 616 Appendix

Toba:Argentina (Chaco, Formosa, Salta, Santa Fe) 36,000–60,000 s.; Paraguay (Pres- idente Hayes, San Pedro): 755 s. (Emok–Toba or Toba Qom). Extinct languages belonging to this family: Abip´on:Argentina (Chaco, Corrientes, Santa Fe). Mbay´a:Argentina (Chaco). Payagu´a:Paraguay (on the ). Guamo: language family. Venezuela (Apure, Barinas, Gu´arico, Portuguesa); all extinct. Harakmbut or Hate: Language with some internal variety, located in Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios): 800–1,600 s.; several subgroups: Amarakaeri, Arasairi, Huachipairi, Kisamberi, Pukieri, Sapiteri, Toy(o)eri or Tuyuneiri;ithas been linked to the Katukinan family in Brazil (Adelaar 2000); further connections with Macro-Ge and Tupi possible. Hibito-Chol´on: language family, two languages both probably extinct; the name ‘Cholona’, from Spanish la lengua cholona (Loukotka 1968), is in error. Chol´on or Seepts´a:Peru (San Mart´ın). Hibito:Peru (San Martin). Huancavilca: unclassified. Ecuador (Guayas); extinct; it may have included the language of the island Pun´a. Huarpean: language family; all extinct. Allentiac:Argentina (San Juan, San Luis). Millcayac:Argentina (Mendoza). Huaorani or Huao or Auca or Auishiri or Sabela: isolate. Ecuador (Napo, Pastaza): 1,200 s. Humahuaca: unclassified language or language family. Argentina (Jujuy); all extinct; subgroups: Fiscara, Humahuaca, Jujuy, Ocloya, Osa, Purmamarca, Tiliar; pos- sible overlap with Atacame˜no influence sphere. Itonama: isolate. Bolivia (Beni): less than 10 aged speakers in an ethnic group of 5,000 (field data Crevels). Jirajaran: language family; all extinct. Ayam´an or Ayom´an:Venezuela (Lara). Gay´on:Venezuela (Lara). Jirajara:Venezuela (Lara). Jivaroan: Language family, four languages. Aguaruna or Awahun or Aents:Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca, San Mart´ın): 34,000– 45,000 s. Achuar (including Shiwyar)orAents: Ecuador (Zamora-Chinchipe): 4,000 s.; Peru (Loreto): 2,800–4,700 s. Huambisa:Peru (Amazonas, Loreto): 4,000–8,000 s. Inventory of Andean languages and language families 617

Shuar: Ecuador (Zamora–Chinchipe, Morona-Santiago): 35,000 s.; Peru (Loreto): a few. Extinct languages associated with this family: Malacato: Ecuador (Loja). Palta: Ecuador (Loja). Xoroca: Ecuador (Zamora–Chinchipe). Kams´a or Sibundoy or Coche: isolate. Colombia (Putumayo): 4,022 s. Kawesqar or Alacaluf or Aksan´as: isolate. Chile (Magallanes): less than 20 s. Leco or Rik’a or Buruwa: isolate. Bolivia (La Paz): c. 50 speakers living in dispersed locations (field data van de Kerke). Lengua–Mascoy: language family, five closely related languages. Angait´e:Paraguay (Boquer´on, Concepci´on, Presidente Hayes): 971 s. Guan´a:Paraguay (Concepci´on, Presidente Hayes): 24 s. Lengua (or Enxet): Paraguay (Boquer´on, Presidente Hayes): 9,387 s. Sanapan´a:Paraguay (Presidente Hayes): 789 s. Toba Mascoy:Paraguay (Alto Paraguay, Boquer´on, Concepci´on, Presidente Hayes): 1,312 s. Lule–Vilela: language family with one surviving language. Vilela:Argentina (Chaco, Santa Fe): possibly a few speakers left; community merged with Mocov´ı and Toba. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Lule:Argentina (Salta, Santiago del Estero, Tucum´an). Tonocot´e:Argentina (Santiago del Estero, Tucum´an); may be related to Lule, or independent; no data. Mac´u–Puinave: language family, three languages; more in Brazil. Yuhup–Hupd´a: Colombia (Vaup´es): 363 s.; more in Brazil. Kaku´a-Nukak (Nukak is Mac´u del Guaviare): Colombia (Guaviare, Vaup´es): 525 s.; more in Brazil. Puinave: Colombia (Guain´ıa, Vichada): 5,380 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas): 774 s. Macro-Ge:Widely extended language phylum with a few representatives in the pre- Andean region. Bororo family: Bororo: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 4 s.; migrants from Brazil; more in Brazil. Otuque (includes Covareca and Curuminaca): Bolivia (Santa Cruz): extinct. Ge family (Kaingang subgroup): Guayana:Argentina (Misiones): extinct. Ingain:Argentina (Misiones): extinct. Guat´o: Isolate. A few in Brazil near the border with Bolivia (Santa Cruz). 618 Appendix

Matacoan: language family, four languages. Chulup´ı or Ashlushlay or Nivacl´e:Argentina: 200–1,200 s.; Paraguay (Boquer´on, Presidente Hayes): 7,780 s. Chorote or Manjui or Yofuaha:Argentina (Salta): 1,200–2,100 s; Paraguay (Bo- quer´on): 208 s. Mak´a:Paraguay (Alto Paran´a, Asunci´on, Caaguaz´u, Central, Concepci´on, Itap´ua, Presidente Hayes): 990 s. Mataco or Wich´ı or Weenhayek (varieties: Guisnay, Noct´en, Vejoz): Argentina (Chaco, Formosa, Salta): 35,000–60,000 s.; Bolivia (Tarija): 1,800 s. Mochica or Muchik or Yunga: isolate. Peru (La Libertad, Lambayeque); presumably extinct. Mosetenan: language family, two closely related languages. Chimane or Tsimane: Bolivia (Beni): 4,000–8,000 s. (Sakel 2003). Moset´en: Bolivia (La Paz): 750–800 s. (Sakel 2003). Movima: isolate. Bolivia (Beni): 1452 s. Munichi or Otanabe: isolate. Peru (Loreto): 3 s. (in 1988). Omurana or Mayna: isolate. Peru (Loreto): extinct. Otomaco or Taparita: language family. Venezuela (Apure): extinct. P´aez or Nasa Yuwe: isolate (with variety Paniquit´a). Colombia (Cauca, Huila): at least 40,000 s. within ethnic group of 119,000. Pano–Tacana: language family consisting of two distinct branches. Panoan: Amahuaca:Peru (Madre de Dios, Ucayali): 247 s.; more in Brazil. Capanahua:Peru (Loreto): 120 to 267 s. Cashibo–Cacataibo or Uni:Peru(Hu´anuco, Ucayali): 1,500–1,800 s. Cashinahua or Junikuin:Peru (Ucayali): 900–1,000 s.; more in Brazil. Ch´acobo or Noiria: Bolivia (Beni): 550 s. Isconahua:Peru (Ucayali): 50 s. Marubo:Peru (Loreto); now only in Brazil. Mayo–Pisabo:Peru (Loreto): 100 s. Mayoruna–Mats´es:Peru (Loreto): 1,177–2,500 s.; more in Brazil. Nahua or Yora or Parquenahua:Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios, Ucayali): c. 170 s.; uncontacted groups associated with the Nahua: Chandinahua (300), Chiton- ahua (50), Maxonahua or Cujare˜no (100), Morunahua (100); closely related to Yaminahua. Pacaguara: Bolivia (Beni): 9–18 s. Sharanahua or Onicoin:Peru (Ucayali): 450–500 s.; associated groups: Marinahua (50–150), Mastanahua (150); more in Brazil. Inventory of Andean languages and language families 619

Shipibo–Conibo (includes extinct Shetebo): Peru (Loreto, Ucayali): 16,000– 27,000 s. Yaminahua: Bolivia (Pando): 137 s.; Peru (Ucayali): 380–1000 s.; more in Brazil. Extinct languages belonging to this subfamily: Arazaire:Peru (Cuzco); the name seems to coincide with Arasairi, one of the neighbouring Harakmbut groups. Atsahuaca or Chaspa:Peru (Madre de Dios). Nocam´an:Peru (Ucayali). P´anobo or Huariapana:Peru (Loreto). Remo:Peru (Loreto); also in Brazil (Amazonas). Sensi:Peru (Loreto). Yamiaca or Ha˜au˜neiri:Peru (Madre de Dios). Tacanan: Araona: Bolivia (La Paz): 81 s. Cavine˜na: Bolivia (Beni, Pando): 1,180 s. Eseejja or Chama or Huarayo: Bolivia (Beni, La Paz, Pando): 225 s.; Peru (Madre de Dios): 500–600 s. Reyesano: Bolivia (Beni): possibly a few elderly speakers within ethnic group of 4,000. Tacana: Bolivia (La Paz): 1,820 s. Toromona: Bolivia (La Paz): 25–200 s. Panzaleo: unclassified. Ecuador (Cotopaxi, Pichincha, Tungurahua): extinct. Puquinan: language family with only one surviving member. Callahuaya: Boliva (La Paz); professional language predominantly based on Puquinan lexicon, only used as a second language; a few users. Extinct language: Puquina: Bolivia (La Paz); Peru (Arequipa, Cuzco, Moquegua, Puno, Tacna); Coli may have been the name of the coastal variety of Puquina formerly spoken in Moquegua and Tacna. Quechuan: language family with an undetermined number of local varieties usually referred to as dialects. Quechua I:Peru (Ancash, Huancavelica, Ica, Hu´anuco, Jun´ın, La Libertad, Lima, Pasco): 750,000 s. Quechua II:Argentina (Jujuy, Santiago del Estero; formerly also Catamarca and La Rioja): 70,000–130,000 s.; Bolivia (Cochabamba, La Paz, Oruro, Potos´ı, Santa Cruz, Sucre, Tarija): 2,400,000 s.; Chile (Antofagasta): a few; Colombia (Caquet´a, Nari˜no, Putumayo; formerly also Cauca and Huila): 17,855 s.; Ecuador (Azuay, Bol´ıvar, Ca˜nar, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, Imbabura, 620 Appendix

Loja, Morona–Santiago, Napo, Pastaza, Pichincha, Sucumb´ıos, Tungurahua): 1,400,000–2,000,000 s.; Peru (Amazonas, Apurimac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cajamarca, Cuzco, Huancavelica, Lambayeque, Lima, Loreto, Madre de Dios, Moquegua, Piura, Puno, San Mart´ın): 2,675,000 s. Quingnam: unclassified. Peru (Ancash, La Libertad): extinct; possibly identical with the Lengua (Yunga) Pescadora mentioned in colonial documents. Sacata: unclassified. Peru (Cajamarca): extinct. Saliban: language family, two languages. Piaroa or Dearuwa or Woth¨uha: Colombia (Vichada): 800 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas): 9,000–11,000 s. S´aliba: Colombia (Arauca, Casanare): 1,300 s. Sanavir´on: unclassified. Argentina (C´ordoba, Santiago del Estero): extinct. Sechuran: language family, all extinct. Olmos:Peru (Lambayeque). Sechura or Sec:Peru (Piura). Tabancale or Aconipa: unclassified. Border area of Ecuador (Zamora-Chinchipe) and Peru (Cajamarca): extinct. Tall´an: language family, all extinct; possibly related to Sechuran. Catacaos:Peru (Piura). Col´an:Peru (Piura). Taushiro or Pinche: unclassified. Peru (Loreto): 7 s. in 1975; possibly related to Zaparoan. Tekiraka or Abishira or Auishiri (with variety: Vacacocha): isolate. Peru (Loreto): pre- sumably extinct. Ticuna or Tucuna: isolate. Colombia (Amazonas): 6,585 s.; Peru (Loreto): 1,787 s.; more in Brazil (c. 32,000 s.). Timote–Cuica: language family or isolate with internal variation. Venezuela (M´erida, Trujillo); presumably extinct, but possible language survival in Mut´us (M´erida) to be verified. Tiniguan: language family with one surviving language. Tinigua: Colombia (Meta): 2 s. Extinct languages belonging to this group: Majigua: Colombia (Meta). Pamigua: Colombia (Meta). Tucanoan: language family. Angutero:Peru (Loreto): 100 speakers, mixed with the Secoya (Wheeler 2000). Bar´a or Waimaj˜a: Colombia (Vaup´es): 96 s. Barasana (including Taiwano or Eduria): Colombia (Vaup´es): 1,910 s.; more in Brazil. Carapana: Colombia (Vaup´es): 412 s.; more in Brazil. Cubeo: Colombia (Vaup´es): 6,035 s.; more in Brazil. Inventory of Andean languages and language families 621

Desano: Colombia (Vaup´es): 2,136 s.; more in Brazil. Koreguaje–Tama: Colombia (Caquet´a): 2,100 s. Macuna or Sara: Colombia (Vaup´es): 922 s.; more in Brazil. Makaguaje: Colombia (Putumayo): 50 s. Matap´ı: Colombia (Amazonas): 200 s. Orej´on or Maijuna or Coto:Peru (Loreto): 288 s. Piratapuyo: Colombia (Vaup´es): 630 s.; more in Brazil. Pisamira: Colombia (Vaup´es): 25 s. (in ethnic group of 54). Secoya (or Pioj´e): Ecuador (Sucumb´ıos): 350 s.; Peru (Loreto): 678 s.; also known as Pai Coca in Ecuador. Siriano: Colombia (Vaup´es): 715 s.; more in Brazil. Siona: Colombia (Putumayo): 700 s.; Ecuador (Sucumb´ıos): 250 s.; also known as Pai Coca in Ecuador. Tanimuca-Letuama (also Retuar˜a): Colombia (Amazonas): 1,800 s. Tatuyo: Colombia (Vaup´es): 294 s. Tetet´e: Ecuador (Sucumb´ıos): probably extinct. Tucano or Yepa Masa: Colombia (Vaup´es): 6,837 s.; more in Brazil. Tuyuca: Colombia (Vaup´es): 570 s.; more in Brazil. Wanano: Colombia (Vaup´es): 1,172 s.; more in Brazil. Ya(h)una: Colombia (Amazonas): 95 s. Yurut´ı: Colombia (Vaup´es): 610 s.; more in Brazil. Presumably extinct groups (no recent data): Coret´u or Curet´u: Colombia (Amazonas). Icaguate: Colombia (Putumayo). Encabellado:Peru (Loreto). Yupua or Sok´o or Uri or Durin˜a: Colombia (Amazonas); cf. Landaburu (1996a). Tupi: widely extended language stock, represented in the area by one family; Tupi is possibly related to Cariban and to Macro-Ge (Rodrigues 2000). Tupi–Guaran´ı: Ach´e or Guayak´ı:Paraguay (Alto Paran´a, Caaguaz´u, Caazap´a, Canindey´u): 538 s. Chiriguano or Ava or Guaran´ı Boliviano:Argentina (Salta): 15,000 to 20,000 s.; Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Sucre, Tarija): 33,670 s. (a local variety in Bolivia is called Izoce˜no); Paraguay (Boquer´on): 24 s. (the local variety is called Guarayo). Chirip´a or Ava-Guaran´ ´ ı:Paraguay (Alto Paran´a, Amambay, Caaguaz´u, Canindey´u, Concepci´on, San Pedro): 1,930 s.; more in Brazil (Nhandeva). Cocama-Cocamilla:Peru (Loreto): 11,000 to 18,000 in ethnic group; language becoming obsolete; some in Brazil. Guaran´ı Correntino or Goyano:Argentina (Corrientes, Formosa, Misiones, Santa Fe): 100,000–500,000 s. 622 Appendix

Guaran´ı or Paraguayan Guaran´ı:Paraguay: c. 4,648,000; more in Brazil. Guarayo: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 5,933–10,029 s. Guarasugw´e or Pauserna: Bolivia (Beni, Santa Cruz): 4 s. in 1974; probably extinct; may be extinct in Brazil as well. Jor´a: Bolivia (Beni): 5 s. in 1974; possibly extinct. Mby´a:Argentina (Misiones): 2,500–3,500 s.; Paraguay (Alto Paran´a, Caaguaz´u, Caazap´a, Canindey´u, Guair´a, Itap´ua, Misiones, San Pedro): 2,435 s.; more in Brazil. Omagua:Peru (Loreto): ethnic group of c. 600; language nearly extinct; more in Brazil (). Pa˜ıTavyter˜a:Paraguay (Amambay, Canindey´u, Concepci´on, San Pedro): 500 s. Sirion´o or Mbia: Bolivia (Beni, Santa Cruz): 400 s. Tapiet´e: Bolivia (Tarija): 70 s.; Paraguay (Boquer´on): 123 s.; Argentina (Salta): 384 s. Yeral (from Portuguese l´ıngua geral )orNengat´˜ u:Venezuela (Amazonas): 730– 2,000 s.; more in Brazil; some in Colombia (Guain´ıa, Vaup´es). Yuqui or Bia: Bolivia (Cochabamba): 125 s. Urarina or Kacha or Simacu or Itucale: isolate. Peru (Loreto): 564–3,000 s. Uru–Chipaya: language family with two surviving languages; historical varieties com- monly referred to as Uruquilla. Chipaya: Bolivia (Oruro): 1,000 s. Uchumataqu or Uru of Iru-Itu: Bolivia (La Paz): 2 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Murato: Bolivia (Oruro); no data. Uru of Ch’imu:Peru (Puno). Yaguan: language family with one surviving language. Yagua or Yihamwo: Colombia (Amazonas): 294 s.; Peru (Loreto): 760–4,000 s; some in Brazil. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Peba:Peru (Loreto). Yameo:Peru (Loreto). Yahgan or Yamana: isolate. Chile (Magallanes): 2 s. Yaruro or Pum´e: isolate. Venezuela (Apure): 5,000 s. Yuracar´e: isolate. Bolivia (Cochabamba): 2,675 s. Yur´ı: unclassified. Colombia (Amazonas): 200 s. Yurumangu´ı: isolate. Colombia (Cauca, Valle del Cauca): extinct. Zamucoan: language family, two languages. Ayoreo or Moro: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 771 s.; Paraguay (Alto Paraguay, Boquer´on): 815 s. Inventory of Andean languages and language families 623

Chamacoco:Paraguay (Central, Boquer´on): 1,187 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family (possibly Ayoreo dialects): Guara˜noca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Zamuco: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Zaparoan: language family (information Cabeceras Aid Project). Andoa or Shimigae:Peru (Loreto): 5 s. in 1975; reportedly extinct. Arabela:Peru (Loreto): 30–40 s. to 100 s. Cahuarano:Peru (Loreto): 5 s. in 1976; reportedly extinct. Iquito:Peru (Loreto): 22–26 s., 15–20 semi-speakers. Z´aparo or Kayapi: Ecuador: 1–4 s. Extinct languages: Gae, Coronado, Oa, etc. (Ecuador).

Languages which cannot be classified for absence of data:

Arma-Pozo: Colombia (Caldas, Risaralda). Atunceta: Colombia (Cauca, Valle del Cauca). Anserma (incl. Caramanta, Cartama): Colombia (Antioquia, Risaralda). Bolona: Ecuador (Loja, Zamora–Chinchipe). Campaces: Ecuador (Manab´ı, Los R´ıos, Pichincha). Canelo: Ecuador (Pastaza). : Colombia (Amazonas); uncontacted group. Chancos: Colombia (Choc´o, Valle del Cauca). Chango: Chile (Antofagasta, Tarapac´a). Chitarero: Colombia (Norte de Santander). Chono: Ecuador (Guayas, Los R´ıos). Ciaman: Colombia (Cauca, Valle del Cauca). Colima: Ecuador (Guayas?). Gorgotoqui: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Guaca and Nori: Colombia (Antioquia, C´ordoba). Guane: Colombia (Santander). Guanaca: Colombia (Cauca, Huila). Hacaritama: Colombia (Norte de Santander). Idabaez: Colombia (Choc´o). Jamund´ı: Colombia (Valle del Cauca). Jitirijiti: Colombia (Valle del Cauca). Irra: Colombia (Caldas, Risaralda). Lache: Colombia (Boyac´a, Santander) Lili: Colombia (Valle del Cauca). Malaba: Ecuador (Esmeraldas). 624 Appendix

Malib´u: Colombia (Atl´antico, Bolivar, Magdalena). Manta: Ecuador (Manab´ı); possibly a cluster of languages. Mocana: Colombia (Atl´antico, Bol´ıvar). Morcote: Colombia (Boyac´a). Pacabuey: Colombia (Bol´ıvar, Cesar, Magdalena). Panatagua:Peru(Hu´anuco). Pant´agora: Colombia (Caldas). Pehuenche:Argentina (Neuqu´en). Pubenza: Colombia (Valle del Cauca). Quijo: Ecuador (Napo). Quimbaya: Colombia (Caldas, Quind´ıo, Risaralda). Quind´ıo: Colombia (Quind´ıo). Sin´u or Zen´u: Colombia (C´ordoba, Sucre); subgroups Fincen´u, Pancen´u, Sinufana. Sutagao: Colombia (Cundinamarca, Meta) Tegua: Colombia (Boyac´a, Casanare). Timan´a: Colombia (Huila). Yalc´on: Colombia (Huila). Yames´ı: Colombia (Antioquia). Yar´ı: Colombia (Caquet´a); uncontacted group. Yarigu´ı or Yarig¨u´ı: Colombia (Santander). Yumbo: Ecuador (Pichincha). REFERENCES

Academia Mayor de la Lengua Quechua (1995) Diccionario Quechua–Espa˜nol–Quechua/ Qheswa–Espa˜nol–Qheswa Simi Taqe. Cuzco: Editorial Mercantil. Acosta, Jos´ede(1954 [1590]) Historia natural y moral de las Indias. In: Francisco Mateos (ed.), Obras del P.Jos´edeAcosta. Biblioteca de autores espa˜noles 73, pp. 1–247. Madrid: Atlas (1987 edition by Jos´e Alcina Franch, Madrid: Historia 16). Acosta Orteg´on, Joaqu´ın (1938) El idioma chibcha aborigen de Cundinamarca.Bogot´a: Imprenta del Departamento. Acosta Saignes, Miguel (1983) Estudios de etnolog´ıa antigua de Venezuela (1st edition 1953). Havana: Casa de las Am´ericas. Adam, Lucien (1878) De la langue chibcha. In: Etudes sur six langues am´ericaines: dakota, chibcha, , kechua, quiche, maya, pp. 29–63. Paris: Maisonneuve. (1885) Grammaire de la langue jˆagane.Paris: Maisonneuve. (1893) Principes et dictionnaire de la langue Yuracar´eouYurujur´e compos´es par le R.P.de la Cueva et publi´es conform´ement au manuscrit de A. d’Orbigny. Biblioth`eque linguistique am´ericaine 16. Paris: Maisonneuve. Adam, Lucien and Victor Henry (1880) Arte y vocabulario de la lengua chiquita con algunos textos traducidos y explicados compuestos sobre manuscritos in´editos del XVIII siglo. Biblioth`eque linguistique am´ericaine 6. Paris: Maisonneuve. Adelaar, Willem F. H. (1977) Tarma Quechua: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press (distributed by E. J. Brill, Leiden). (1982) L´exico del quechua de Pacaraos. Documento 45. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. (1984) Grammatical vowel length and the classification of Quechua dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 50, 1, pp. 25–47. (1986a) Morfolog´ıa del quechua de Pacaraos. Documento 53. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada (also published in 1987 by Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima). (1986b) La relaci´on quechua-aru: perspectivas para la separaci´on del l´exico. Revista Andina 4, 2, pp. 379–426 (continued in 1987 in Revista Andina 5, 1, pp. 83–91). Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1987) Aymarismos en el quechua de Puno. Indiana 11, pp. 223–31. Ibero-amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. (1988) Search for the Culli language. In: Maarten Jansen, Peter van der Loo and Roswitha Manning (eds.) Continuity and Identity in Native America. Essays to Honor Benedikt Hartmann, pp. 111–31. Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, Cologne: E. J. Brill (published in

625 626 References

Spanish as ‘En pos de la lengua culle’ in: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 83–105). (1989) Review of Joseph H. Greenberg Language in the Americas (1987). Lingua 78, pp. 249–55. Amsterdam. (1991) The endangered languages problem: South America. In: H. Robins and Eugenius M. Uhlenbeck (eds.), Endangered Languages, pp. 45–91. Collection Diog`ene. Oxford and New York: Berg Publishers. (1994) ¿Hasta donde llega la inflexi´on? Criterios para una clasificaci´on interna de los sufijos verbales en quechua de Tarma/Norte de Jun´ın. In: Calvo P´erez (1994), pp. 65–83. (1995a) Les cat´egories verbales ‘conjugaison’et ‘genre’ dans les grammaires de la langue chibcha. In: Troiani (1995), pp. 173–82. (1995b) Ra´ıces ling¨u´ısticas del quichua de Santiago del Estero. In: Fern´andez Garay and Viegas Barros (1995), pp. 25–50. (1996) La nasal velar en el aymara y en el jaqaru. Opci´on 12, 19, pp. 5–19. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia. (1999) Unprotected languages: the silent death of the languages of northern Peru. In: Anita Herzfeld and Yolanda Lastra (eds.), Las causas sociales de la desaparici´on y del mantenimiento de las lenguas en las naciones de Am´erica, pp. 205–22. Hermosillo, Sonora: Editorial Unison. (2000) Propuesta de un nuevo v´ınculo gen´etico entre dos grupos ling¨u´ısticos ind´ıgenas de la Amazon´ıa occidental: Harakmbut y Katukina. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2, pp. 219–36. Adelaar, Willem F. H. and Jorge Trigoso (1998) Un documento colonial quechua de Cajamarca. In: Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz et al. (1998), pp. 641–51. Aguiar, Maria Suel´ıde(1994) Fontes de Pesquisa e Estudo da Fam´ılia Pano. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp. Aguilar P´aez, Rafael (1970) Gram´atica quechua y vocabularios (adaptation of Antonio Ricardo 1586). Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Aguilera Fa´undez, Oscar E. (1978) L´exico Kaw´esqar-Espa˜nol, Espa˜nol-Kaw´esqar (Alacalufe septentrional), Bolet´ın de Filolog´ıa 29, pp. 7–149. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades, Departamento de Ling¨u´ıstica y Filolog´ıa. (1984a) Puerto Ed´en revisitado. Cuarta Expedici´on Etnoling¨u´ıstica entre los Alacalufes de la Patagonia Occidental (en colaboraci´on con Mar´ıa Eugenia Brito y Hugo Nervi). Trilog´ıa 4, 6, pp. 7–12. Santiago de Chile: Instituto Profesional de Santiago. (1984b) Pronombres kaw´esqar. Trilog´ıa 4, 7, pp. 59–83. Santiago de Chile: Instituto Profesional de Santiago. (1988) Review of Clairis (1987). Lenguas Modernas 15, pp. 173–200. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades, Departamento de Lenguas Modernas. (1997) La expresi´on del tiempo en kaw´esqar. Onom´azein 2, pp. 269–304. Santiago de Chile: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. (1999) En torno al orden de las palabras en kaw´esqar: componentes morfol´ogicos del verbo. Onom´azein 4, pp. 301–20. Santiago de Chile: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. Aguil´o, Federico (1991) Diccionario .LaPaz: Museo Nacional de Etnograf´ıa y Folklore. Aguirre Licht, Daniel (1998) Fundamentos morfosint´acticos para una gram´atica ember´a. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1999) Ember´a. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (1999) Areal diffusion and language contact in the I¸cana-Vaup´es basin, northwest Amazonia. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), pp. 384–416. References 627

(2001a) Areal diffusion, genetic inheritance, and problems of subgrouping: a North Arawak case study. In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, pp. 167–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2001b) Dicion´ario Tariana-Portuguˆes e Portuguˆes-Tariana. Boletim do Museu Paraense Em´ılio Goeldi. S´erie Antropologia 17, 1. Bel´em do Par´a. (2002) Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2003) AGrammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Albis, Manuel Mar´ıa (1860–1) The Indians of Andaqui, New Granada. Notes of a Traveller: published by Jos´e Mar´ıa Vergara y Vergara and Evaristo Delgado, Popay´an 1885; translated from the Spanish by J. S. Thrasher, Esq., for the American Ethnological Society. Bulletin of the American Ethnological Society,vol. 1, pp. 53–72. Alb´o, Xavier (1968) Social Constraints on Cochabamba Quechua. PhD diss. Cornell University, Ithaca. (1974) Los mil rostros del quechua. Socioling¨u´ıstica de Cochabamba. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1977) El futuro de las lenguas oprimidas en los Andes. Documento de Trabajo 33. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. (1980) Lengua y sociedad en Bolivia, 1976.LaPaz: Instituto Nacional de Estad´ıstica. ed. (1988a) Ra´ıces de Am´erica: el mundo aymara. Madrid: Alianza Editorial and Unesco. (1988b) Bilingualism in Bolivia. In: Christina Bratt Paulston (ed.), International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, pp. 85–108. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. (1989) Introducci´on. In: Girault (1989), pp. 13–18. (1995) Bolivia pluriling¨ue. Gu´ıa para planificadores y educadores. Cuadernos de investigaci´on 44. 2 vols., maps, appendices. La Paz: Unicef and Centro de Investigaci´on y Promoci´on del Campesinado (CIPCA). Alb´o, Xavier and F´elix Layme (1992) Literatura aymara. Antolog´ıa. I: Prosa.LaPaz: CIPCA, Hisbol and Jayma. (1993) Los textos aymaras de Waman Puma. In: Duviols (1993), pp. 13–41. (forthcoming) M´as sobre el aymara de Guaman Poma. To appear in Jean-Philippe Husson (ed.), Entre tradici´on e innovaci´on: cinco siglos de literatura amerindia. Actas del simposio ‘Fondo aut´octono y aportes ind´ıgenas en las literaturas amerindias – aspectos metodol´ogicos y filol´ogicos’. 50 Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (Warsaw, July 2000). Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Alderetes, Jorge R. (1994) El quechua de Santiago del Estero. Gram´atica y vocabulario. Tucum´an: Universidad Nacional de Tucum´an. (New edition 2001.) Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid (2000) Fray Pedro de la Mata, Arte de la Lengua Cholona (1748). Una gram´atica colonial: problemas en su uso. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2, pp. 317–28. (2002) Nominal morphophonological processes observed in Pedro de la Mata’s ‘Arte de la Lengua Cholona’ (1748). In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 103–10. (MS) Pedro de la Mata: Arte de la lengua cholona, 1748. The British Library MS Additional 25, 322 (transcription). (forthcoming). A grammar of the Chol´on language based on the interpretation of the manuscript of Pedro de la Mata (1748). The British Library Ms. Additional 25, 322. Leiden University. Allaire, Louis (1999) Archaeology of the Caribbean region. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1, pp. 668–773. Allin, Trevor R. (1976) AGrammar of Res´ıgaro,3vols. Horsleys Green, High Wycombe, Bucks.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 628 References

(1979) Vocabulario res´ıgaro. Documento de Trabajo 16. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Alonso, Amado (1953) Examen de la teor´ıa indigenista de Rodolfo Lenz. In: Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Temas Hispanoamericanos 5, pp. 332–98. Madrid: Gredos. Alonso, Amado and Raimundo Lida, eds. (1940) El Espa˜nol en Chile. Trabajos de Rodolfo Lenz, Andr´es Bello y Rodolfo Oroz. Biblioteca de Dialectolog´ıa Hispanoamericana 6. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de Filolog´ıa. Altieri, Radam´es A., ed. (1939) Fernando de la Carrera, Arte de la lengua Yunga (1644). Tucum´an: Universidad de Tucum´an, Instituto de Antropolog´ıa. Alvar, Manuel (1977) La gram´atica mosca de Fray Bernardo de Lugo.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1978) Resurrecci´on de una lengua: introducci´on a la edici´on facsimilar de la Gram´atica Chibcha del Padre Fray Bernardo de Lugo, editada en 1619. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica and Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperaci´on. Alvarez, Eud´ofilo (1983 [c.1915]) Vocabulario shuar-castellano. Ecuador: Mundo Shuar. Alvarez, Jos´e (1985) Aspects of the Phonology of Guajiro. PhD diss. University of Essex. (1990) Coronalidad voc´alica y anterorizaci´on de vocales en los prefijos guajiros. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnoling¨u´ısticos 7, pp. 50–61. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor. (1993) Antolog´ıa de textos guajiros interlineales. Maracaibo: Gobernaci´on del Estado Zulia, Secretar´ıa de Cultura. (1994) Estudios de ling¨u´ıstica guajira. Maracaibo: Gobernaci´on del Estado Zulia, Secretar´ıa de Cultura. (1996) Construcciones posesivas en guajiro. Opci´on 12, 19, pp. 21–44. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia. Alvarez-Brun, F´elix (1970) Ancash, una historia regional peruana. Lima: Ediciones Pablo L. Villanueva. Alvarez-Santullano Busch, M. Pilar (1992) Variedad interna y deterioro del dialecto huilliche. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 30, pp. 61–74. Concepci´on, Chile. Anchieta, Joseph de (1595) Arte de grammatica da lingua mais usada na costa do Brasil. Coimbra: Antˆonio Mariz (1946 edition, S˜ao Paulo: Editora Anchieta). Andagoya, Pascual de (1986 [1545]) Relaci´on y documentos, ed. Adri´an Bl´azquez. Madrid: Historia 16. Andrade Ciudad, Luis Florentino (1999) Top´onimos de una lengua andina extinta en un listado de 1943. Lexis 23, 2, pp. 401–25. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. Angenot-de Lima, Geralda (2001) Description phonologique, grammaticale et lexicale du mor´e, langue amazonienne de Bolivie et du Br´esil,2vols. Guajar´a Mirim: Editora da Universidade Federal de Rondˆonia. Animato, Carlo, Paolo A. Rossi and Clara Miccinelli (1989) Quipu. Il nodo parlante dei misteriosi Incas. Genoa: Edizioni Culturali Internazionali. Anonymous (1928 [18th century]) Vocabulario Andaqui-Espa˜nol. In: Cat´alogo de la Real Biblioteca, vol. VI: Manuscritos. Lenguas de Am´erica, pp. 175–95. Madrid. Ans, Andr´e Marcel d’ (1970) Materiales para el estudio del grupo ling¨u´ıstico pano. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos: Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. (1977) Chilueno ou arauco, langue des Changos du nord du Chili (dialecte mapuche septentrional). Amerindia 2, pp. 135–8. Paris: Soci´et´e d’Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. Apaza Apaza, Ignacio (1999) Los procesos de creaci´on l´exica en la lengua aymara.LaPaz: Magenta Industria Gr´afica. (2000) Estudio dialectal del aymara. Caracterizaci´on ling¨u´ıstica de la regi´on intersalar de Uyuni y Coipasa.LaPaz: Instituto de Estudios Bolivianos. References 629

Appel, Ren´e and Pieter C. Muysken (1987) Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold. Arango Ochoa, Ra´ul and Enrique S´anchez Guti´errez (1998) Los pueblos ind´ıgenas de Colombia 1997: desarrollo y territorio.Bogot´a: Tercer Mundo and Departamento Nacional de Planeaci´on. Araya, Guillermo et al. (1973) Atlas ling¨u´ıstico-etnogr´afico del Sur de Chile (ALESUCH) I, Valdivia: Instituto de Filolog´ıa de la Universidad Austral de Chile. Arcila Robledo, Gregorio (1940) Vocabulario de los indios yurumangu´ıes. Vo zFranciscana, 16, 179, pp. 341–43. Bogot´a. Ardila, Olga (1993) La subfamilia ling¨u´ıstica tucano-oriental: estado actual y perspectivas de investigaci´on. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp 219–33. (2000) Fonolog´ıa del guahibo (o sikuani). In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 571–4. Arnold, Jennifer (1996) The inverse system in Mapudungun and other languages. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 34, pp. 9–48. Concepci´on, Chile. Arriaza, Bernardo T. (1995) Beyond Death: the Chinchorro Mummies of Chile.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Aschmann, Richard P. (1993) Proto Witotoan. SIL Papers in Linguistics 114. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. Augusta, F´elix Jos´ede(1903) Gram´atica araucana.Valdivia: Imprenta Central J. Lampert. (1910) Lecturas araucanas.Valdivia: Imprenta de la Prefectura Apost´olica (republished in 1991, Temuco: Editorial Kushe). (1916) Diccionario Araucano–Espa˜nol Espa˜nol–Araucano. (1966) Diccionario araucano. Tomo Primero: Araucano–Espa˜nol (re-edition of the first part of Augusta 1916). Padre las Casas (Chile): Imprenta y Editorial ‘San Francisco’. (1990) Gram´atica mapuche biling¨ue (re-edition of Augusta 1903). Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Seneca. (1991) Diccionario Espa˜nol–Mapuche (re-edition of the second part of Augusta 1916). Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Seneca. Bacelar, La´ercio Nora (MS 1996) Vocabul´ario preliminar Portuguˆes-Kanoˆe. Goiˆania. Ball´on Aguirre, Enrique and Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino (1990) Diglosia linguo-literaria y educaci´on en el Per´u. Homenaje a Alberto Escobar. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONCYTEC) and DeutscheGesellschaftf¨urtechnischeZusammenarbeit(GTZ). Ball´on Aguirre, Enrique, Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino and Emilio Chambi Apaza (1992) Vocabulario razonado de la actividad agraria andina. Terminolog´ıa agraria quechua. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. Balmori, Clemente Hernando (1967) Estudios dearea ´ ling¨u´ıstica ind´ıgena. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Centro de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Barbira, Fran¸coise (1979) Ethnicity and Boundary: Maintenance among Peruvian Forest Quechua. PhD diss. Cambridge University. Bastian, Adolf (1878) Die Culturl¨ander des alten America,vol. 1. Berlin. Bastien, Joseph W. (1978) Mountain of the Condor. Metaphor and Ritual in an Andean .St Paul: West Publishing Company (1985 edition, Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press). Bausani, Alessandro (1975) Nuovi materiali sulla lingua Chono. In: Cerulli and Della Ragione (1975), pp. 107–16. Belleza Castro, Nely (1995) Vocabulario Jacaru–Castellano, Castellano–Jacaru (aimara tupino). Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. Belleza Castro, Neli, Marco Ferrell Ram´ırez and Felipe Huayhua Pari (MS 1992) Jaqaru Iskriwitkuna – Jaqi Aru Qillqatanaka – Kachyath Jaqaru Iskriwitkuna – Kachuyatha Jaqi Aru Qillqatanaka. Lima. 630 References

Bendor-Samuel, John T. (1961) The Verbal Piece in Jebero. Supplement to Word 17. Monograph no. 4. Bengoa, Jos´e (1985) Historia del pueblo mapuche. Siglo XIX y XX. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Sur (6th edition 2000, Santiago de Chile: Editorial Lom). Benvenutto Murrieta, Pedro Manuel (1936) El lenguaje peruano I. Lima: Talleres de Sanmart´ı yc´ıa. Bertonio, Ludovico (1603a) Arte breve de la lengua aymara para introducci´on del arte grande de la misma lengua. Rome: Luis Zanetti. (1603b) Arte y grammatica muy copiosa de la lengua aymara. Rome: Luis Zanetti (1879 edition by Julius Platzmann, Leipzig: B. G. Teubner). (1612a) Vocabulario de la lengua aymara. Juli, Chucuito: Francisco del Canto (1984 edition by Xavier Alb´o and F´elix Layme, Cochabamba: Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Econ´omica y Social, Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos and Museo Nacional de Etnograf´ıa y Folklore). (1612b) Libro de la vida y milagros de Nuestro Se˜nor Iesu Christo en dos lenguas, aymara y romance. Juli, Chucuito: Francisco del Canto. Betanzos, Juan de (1987 [1551]) Suma y narraci´on de los Incas, ed. Mar´ıa del Carmen Mart´ın Rubio. Madrid: Atlas. Beuchat, Henri and Paul Rivet (1909) La langue jibaro ousiwora ˇ 1. Anthropos 4, pp. 805–22, 1053–64. (1910a) La langue jibaro ousiwora ˇ 2. Anthropos 5, pp. 1109–24. (1910b) Affinit´es des langues du Sud de la Colombie et du Nord de l’Equateur.´ Le Mus´eon,NS 11, pp. 33–68, 141–98. Louvain. Beyersdorff, Margot and Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, eds. (1994) Andean Oral Traditions: Discourse and Literature. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 24. Bonn: Holos. Bibar, Ger´onimo de (1966 [1558]) Cr´onica y relaci´on copiosa y verdadera de los Reynos de Chile hecha por Ger´onimo de Bibar, natural de Burgos. Santiago de Chile: Fondo Hist´orico y Bibliogr´afico Jos´eToribio Medina; Chicago: Newberry Library (see also Vivar). Bickerton, Derek and A. Escalante (1970) Palenquero: a Spanish-based creole of northern Colombia. Lingua 24, pp. 254–67. Bills, Garland D., Bernardo Vallejo and Rudolph Troike (1969) An Introduction to Spoken Bolivian Quechua. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bird, Junius (1946) The Alacaluf. In: J. H. Steward (1946a), pp. 55–79. Bixio, Beatriz (1993) Categor´ıas vac´ıas en allentiac. Actas de las Primeras Jornadas de Etnoling¨u´ıstica (Rosario, 16–18 June 1993), vol. 1, pp. 61–71. Rosario: Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Bonilla, V´ıctor Daniel (1972) Servants of God or Masters of Men? The Story of a Capuchin Mission in Amazonia. London: Pelican Books. Borman, Marlytte B. (1976) Vocabulario cof´an.M´exico: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Bouysse-Cassagne, Th´er`ese (1975) Pertenenciaetnica, ´ status econ´omico y lenguas en Charcas a fines del siglo XVI. In: Noble David Cook (ed.), Tasa de la visita general de Francisco de Toledo, pp. 312–28. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Bowman, Isaiah (1924) Desert Trails of Atacama.New York: American Geographical Society (republished in 1971, New York: AMS Press). Boyd-Bowman, Peter (1973) Patterns of Spanish emigration to the New World (1493–1580). Special Studies No. 34. Buffalo: Council on International Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo. Brack Egg, Antonio and Carlos Y´a˜nez (1997) Amazonia Peruana. Comunidades ind´ıgenas, conocimientos y tierras tituladas. Atlas y base de datos. Global Environment Facility, Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarollo and United Nations Office for Project Services. Lima. References 631

Branks, Thomas, and Judith Branks (1973) Fonolog´ıa del guambiano. In: Sistemas fonol´ogicos de idiomas colombianos,vol. 2, pp. 39–56. Lomalinda: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (Editorial Townsend). Bravo, Domingo A. (1956) El quichua santiague˜no. Reducto idiom´atico argentino.Tucum´an: Universidad Nacional de Tucum´an. (1993) El quichua santiague˜no es el quichua argentino. In: Viegas Barros and Stell (1993), pp. 35–46. Bridges, Lucas (1987 [1948]) Uttermost Part of the World. London, Melbourne, Auckland, Johannesburg: Century Hutchinson. Bridges, Thomas (1894) A few notes on the structure of Yahgan. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 23, pp. 53–80. (1933 [MS 1879]) Yamana–English: a Dictionary of the Speech of Tierra del Fuego, ed. D. Hestermann and M. Gusinde. M¨odling near Vienna: Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift Anthropos. Briggs, Janet R. (1973) Ayor´e narrative analysis. International Journal of American Linguistics 39, pp. 155–63. Briggs, Lucy Therina (1976) Dialectal Variation in the Aymara Language of Bolivia and Peru. PhD diss. University of Florida, Gainesville. (1988) Estructura del sistema nominal. In: Hardman et al. (1988), pp. 171–264. (1993) El idioma aymara. Variantes regionales y sociales.LaPaz: Ediciones Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara (ILCA). Briggs, Lucy Therina and Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, eds. (1995) Manuela Ari: an Aymara Woman’s Testimony of her Life. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 25. Bonn: Holos. Brinton, Daniel Garrison (1891) The American Race: a Linguistic Classification and Ethnographic Description of the Native Tribes of North and South America.New York: N. D. C. Hodges. Brundage, Burr Cartwright (1967) Lords of Cuzco: a History and Description of the Inca People in their Final Days. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Br¨uning, Enrique (1922) Estudios monogr´aficos del departamento de Lambayeque. Fasc´ıculo 2: Olmos. Chiclayo: Dionisio Mendoza (republished in 1989, Chiclayo: Sociedad de Investigaci´on de la Ciencia, Cultura y Arte Norte˜no (SICAN)). Buchwald, Otto von (1918) Migraciones sudamericanas. Bolet´ın de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Hist´oricos Americanos 1, pp. 227–36. Quito. (1922) An´alisis de una gram´atica atacame˜na. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia 5, 12–14, pp. 292–301. Quito. Buesa Oliver, Tom´as (1965) Indoamericanismos l´exicos en espa˜nol. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas. B¨uttner, Thomas Th. (1983) Las lenguas de los Andes centrales. Estudios sobre la clasificaci´on gen´etica, areal y tipol´ogica. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica del Instituto de Cooperaci´on Iberoamericana. (1993) Uso del quichua y del castellano en la sierra ecuatoriana. Quito: Abya-Yala. B¨uttner, Thomas Th. and Dionisio Condori Cruz (1984) Diccionario Aymara–Castellano. Arunakan liwru: Aymara–Kastillanu. Puno: Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue. Cabello Valboa, Miguel (1951 [1586]) Miscel´anea ant´artica. Una historia del Per´u antiguo. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Facultad de Letras, Instituto de Etnolog´ıa. Cabral, Ana Suelly Arruda Cˆamara (1995) Contact-Induced Language Change in the Western Amazon: the Non-Genetic Origin of the Kokama Language. PhD diss. . (2000) ¿En qu´e sentido el kok´ama no es una lengua tupi-guaran´ı? In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2, pp. 237–51. 632 References

Cabrera, Pablo (1917) Datos sobre etnograf´ıa diaguita: un documento interesante. Revista de la Universidad Nacional de C´ordoba 4, 10, pp. 430–63. C´ordoba, Argentina. Cadogan, Le´on (1952) Ayvu Rapyta, Textos m´ıticos de los mby´a-guaran´ı del Guair´a. Boletim n´um. 227, Antropologia 5. S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciˆencias e Letras. (1968) Diccionario Guayak´ı–Espa˜nol.Paris: Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes, Mus´ee de l’Homme. Caillavet, Chantal (1983) Toponimia hist´orica, arqueolog´ıa y formas prehisp´anicas de agricultura en la regi´on de Otavalo, Ecuador. Bulletin de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines 12, 3–4, pp. 1–21. Paris and Lima. (2000) Etnias del norte. Etnohistoria e historia de Ecuador. Madrid: Casa de Vel´azquez; Lima: Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos; Quito: Abya Yala. Cajas Rojas, Judith (1990) Nasalizaci´on en urarina. In: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 217–25. Calancha, Antonio de la (1977 [1638]) Cr´onica moralizada.6vols., ed. Ignacio Prado Pastor. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Calvache Due˜nas, Roc´ıo (1989) Fonolog´ıa e introducci´on a la morfosintaxis del Awa Pit. MA thesis Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Antropolog´ıa. Bogot´a. (2000) Fonolog´ıa y aproximaci´on a la morfosintaxis del Awa Pit. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 97–116. Calvo P´erez, Julio (1993) Pragm´atica y gram´atica del quechua cuzque˜no. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. ed. (1994) Actas de las II Jornadas Internacionales de Lengua y Cultura Amerindias,Valencia, 24–26 November 1993. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Departamento de Teor´ıa de los Lenguajes. (1998a) Ollantay. Edici´on cr´ıtica de la obra an´onima quechua. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´ede Las Casas. (1998b) Hip´otesis sobre los or´ıgenes del quechua y el aymara. In: Luis Miranda Esquerre and Amanda Orellana (eds.), Actas del II Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Ling¨u´ıstico-Filol´ogicas,vol. 2, pp. 25–44. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma. Camacho, Jos´e, Liliana Paredes and Liliana S´anchez (1995) The genitive clitic and the genitive construction in Andean Spanish. Probus 7, pp. 133–47. Berlin. Camp, Elizabeth L. (1985) Split ergativity in Cavine˜na. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 1, pp. 43–7. Campbell, Lyle (1973) Distant genetic relationship and the Maya–Chipaya hypothesis. Anthropological Linguistics 15, 3, pp. 113–35. (1995) The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica 12, 2, pp. 157–200. (1997) American Indian Languages: the of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, Lyle and Marianne Mithun, eds. (1979) The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press. Canals Frau, Salvador (1946) Una encomienda de indios capayanes. Anales del Instituto de Etnograf´ıa Americana 7, pp. 197–223. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras. (1953) Las poblaciones ind´ıgenas de la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana. C´ardenas, V´ıctor Hugo and Xavier Alb´o (1983) El aymara. In: Pottier (1983), pp. 283–307. Carpenter, Lawrence K. (1982) Ecuadorian Quechua: Descriptive Sketch and Variation. PhD diss. University of Florida, Gainesville. Carrera Daza, Fernando de la (1644) Arte de la lengua yunga (for 1939 edition see Altieri). References 633

Casamiquela, Rodolfo M. (1983) Nociones de gram´atica del G¨un¨una K¨une.Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. (1992) Comments on the texts of J. C. Wolf. Latin American Literatures Journal 8, 2, pp. 143–51. Castellanos, Juan de (1944 [1589]) Eleg´ıas de varones ilustres de Indias. Biblioteca de Autores Espa˜noles, vol. IV. Madrid: Atlas. Castro de Trelles, Lucila, ed. (1992) Relaci´on de la religi´on y ritos del Per´u hecha por los padres agustinos. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Catrileo, Mar´ıa (1987) Mapudunguyu. Curso de lengua mapuche.Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile. Catta Quelen, Javier (1994) Gram´atica del quichua ecuatoriano (3rd edition). Quito: Abya-Yala. Celed´on, Rafael (1878) Gram´atica, catecismo i vocabulario de la lengua goajira. Biblioth`eque linguistique am´ericaine 5. Paris: Maisonneuve. (1886) Gram´atica de la lengua k¨oggaba, con vocabularios y catecismos, y un vocabulario espa˜nol, chimila, guamaka y bintukua. Biblioth`eque linguistique am´ericaine 10. Paris: Maisonneuve. Censabella, Marisa (MS 1996) El toba. Estudio fonol´ogico de las variedades regionales habladas en las provincias de Chaco y Formosa, Argentina. Report for Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas y T´ecnicas (CONICET). Buenos Aires. (1999) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas de la Argentina. Una mirada actual. Buenos Aires: Editorial Universitaria de Buenos Aires. Cerr´on-Palomino, Rodolfo M. (1967) Fonolog´ıa del wanka. In: Escobar et al. (1967), pp. 53–80. (1972) Ense˜nanza del castellano: deslindes y perspectivas. In: Escobar (1972), pp. 143–67. (1973a) Retroflexivizaci´on y deslateralizaci´on en wanka. Documento de Trabajo 8. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. (1973b) La evoluci´on del fonema */q/ en Yaʔa-Wanka. Documento de Trabajo 15. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. (1976a) Gram´atica quechua Jun´ın–Huanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976b) Diccionario quechua Jun´ın–Huanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976c) Calcos sint´acticos en el castellano andino. San Marcos 14, 9, pp. 3–10. Lima. (1977a) Huanca Quechua Dialectology. PhD diss. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. (1977b) Cambios gramaticalmente condicionados en quechua: una desconfirmaci´on de la teor´ıa neogram´atica del cambio fon´etico. Lexis 1, 2, pp. 163–86. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1979) La primera persona posesora-actora del protoquechua. Lexis 3, 1, pp. 1–39. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1981) Aprender castellano en un contexto pluriling¨ue. Lexis 5, 1, pp. 39–51. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. ed. (1982) Aula quechua. Lima: Ediciones Signo. (1985) Panorama de la ling¨u´ıstica andina. Revista Andina 3, 2, pp. 509–72. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1986) Comentario de Willem F. H. Adelaar, La relaci´on quechua-aru: perspectivas para la separaci´on del l´exico. Revista Andina 4, 2, pp. 403–8. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1987a) Ling¨u´ıstica quechua. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (2nd edition 2003). 634 References

(1987b) Unidad y diferenciaci´on ling¨u´ıstica en el mundo andino. Lexis 11, pp. 71–104. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica. (1987c) La flexi´on de persona y n´umero en el protoquechua. Indiana 11, pp. 263–76. Ibero-amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag (also published in Language Sciences 9, 1, pp. 77–89). (1989a) Lengua y sociedad en el valle del Mantaro. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1989b) Language policy in Peru: a historical overview. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 77, pp. 11–33. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (1989c) Quechua y mochica: lenguas en contacto. Lexis 12, 1, pp. 47–68. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1990) Reconsideraci´on del llamado ‘quechua coste˜no’. Revista Andina 8, 2, pp. 335–409. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas (also published in: Ball´on Aguirre and Cerr´on-Palomino (1990), pp. 179–240). (1993) Quechu´ıstica y aimar´ıstica: una propuesta terminol´ogica. Signo & Se˜na 3: Etnoling¨u´ıstica, pp. 19–53. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras. (1994a) Quechumara. Estructuras paralelas de las lenguas quechua y aimara.LaPaz: Centro de Investigaci´on y Promoci´on del Campesinado (CIPCA). (1994b) Vocales largas en jacaru: Reconsideraci´on. Lexis 18, 1, pp. 69–81. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1995a) Dialectolog´ıa del aimara sure˜no. Revista Andina 13, 1, pp. 103–72. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1995b) La lengua de Naimlap. Reconstrucci´on y obsolescencia del mochica. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. (1998) El cantar de Inca Yupanqui y la lengua secreta de los Incas. Revista Andina 16, 2, pp. 417–50. (2000) Ling¨u´ıstica aimara. Lima: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas, Programa de Formaci´on en Educaci´on Intercultural Biling¨ue para los Paises Andinos (PROEIB Andes). (MS 2002) Bosquejo estructural del chipaya. (2003) Castellano andino: aspectos socioling¨u´ısticos, pedag´ogicos y gramaticales. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u and Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Cerr´on-Palomino, Rodolfo M. and Enrique Ball´on Aguirre (MS 2003) Vocabulario Castellano–Chipaya Chipaya–Castellano. Cerr´on-Palomino, Rodolfo M. and Gustavo Sol´ıs Fonseca, eds. (1990) Temas de ling¨u´ıstica amerindia (Actas del Primer Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Ling¨u´ıstico-Filol´ogicas, Lima, November 1987). Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog´ıa (CONCYTEC) and Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Cerulli, Ernesta and Gilda Della Ragione, eds. (1975) Atti del XL Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti (Rome-Genoa, 3–12 September 1972), vol. 3: Linguistica – Folklore – Storia americana – Sociologia. Genoa: Tilgher. Chamberlain, Alexander Francis (1913) Linguistic stocks of South American Indians (with distribution map). American Anthropologist 15, pp. 236–47. Chaparro, Carmelo (1985) Fonolog´ıa y lexic´on del quechua de Chachapoyas. Lima: Sagsa. Chase-Sardi, Miguel (1972) The present situation of the Indians in Paraguay. In: Dostal (1972), pp. 173–217. Chase Smith, Richard (1979) The Multinational Squeeze on the Amuesha People of Central Peru. IWGIA Document 35. Copenhagen: International Work Group of Indigenous Affairs. Chatwin, Bruce (1983) In Patagonia. London: Picador. References 635

Chaumeil, Jean-Pierre (1984) Between Zoo and Slavery: the Yagua of Eastern Peru in their Present Situation. IWGIA Document 49. Copenhagen: International Work Group of Indigenous Affairs. Chaves Mendoza, Alvaro, Jorge Morales G´omez and Horacio Calle Restrepo (1995) Los indios de Colombia. Quito: Abya-Yala (first published in 1992 by Editorial MAPFRE, Madrid). Chirif, Alberto and Carlos Mora (1977) Atlas de comunidades nativas. Lima: Sistema Nacional de Apoyo a la Movilizaci´on Social (SINAMOS). Chirinos Rivera, Andr´es (1998) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas peruanas m´as all´a del 2000. Revista Andina 16, 2, pp. 453–79. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (2001) Atlas ling¨u´ıstico del Per´u. Cuzco and Lima: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas, Ministerio de Educaci´on. Chirinos Rivera, Andr´es and Alejo Maque Capira (1996) Eros andino: Alejo Khunku willawanchik. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. Chom´e, Ignace (1958 [1738–45]) see Lussagnet (1958). Cieza de Le´on, Pedro de (1984 [1553]) Cr´onica del Per´u: primera parte. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Claesson, Kenneth (1994) A phonological outline of Mataco/Noctenes. International Journal of American Linguistics 60, 1, pp. 1–38. Clair-Vassiliadis, Christos (1976) Esquisse phonologique de l’aymara parl´eauChili. La linguistique 12, pp. 143–52. Paris. Clairis, Chistos (1985) Indigenous languages of Tierra del Fuego. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 753–83. (1987) El Qawesqar. Ling¨u´ıstica fueguina, teor´ıa y descripci´on. Estudios Filol´ogicos, Anejo 12 (1985). Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades. (1998) Ling¨u´ıstica fueguina 1997. In: Marisa Censabella and Jos´ePedro Viegas Barros (eds.), Actas de las III Jornadas de Ling¨u´ıstica Aborigen (Buenos Aires, 20–23 May 1997), pp. 21–44. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Clastres, H´el`ene (1975) La terre sans mal. Le proph´etisme tupi-guarani.Paris: Editions du Seuil. Cobo, Bernab´e (1890–5 [1653]) Historia del Nuevo Mundo,4vols., ed. Marcos Jim´enez de la Espada. Sevilla: E. Rasco (1892 edition by Atlas, Madrid). Cole, Peter (1982) Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Cole, Peter, Wayne Harbert and Gabriella Hermon (1982) Headless relative clauses in Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics 48, 2, pp. 113–24. Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon and Mario Daniel Mart´ın, eds. (1994) Language in the Andes. Newark, Del.: Latin American Studies Program, University of Delaware. Co˜na, Pascual (1984) Testimonio de un cacique mapuche. Santiago: Pehuen Editores. Condori, Bernab´e and Rosalind Gow (1982) Kay pacha (2nd edition). Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Condori Mamani, Gregorio (1977) Autobiograf´ıa, ed. Ricardo Valderrama Fern´andez and Carmen Escalante Guti´errez. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. Constenla Uma˜na, Adolfo (1981) Comparative Chibchan Phonology. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (1984) Los fonemas del muisca. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha,vol. 3, pp. 65–111. San Jos´e: Universidad de Costa Rica, Departamento de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1988) Indicios para la reconstrucci´on de clasificadores en el sintagma nominal protochibcha (1). Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 14, 2, pp. 111–18. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. 636 References

(1989) Subagrupaci´on de las lenguas chibchas: algunos nuevos indicios comparativos y lexicoestad´ısticos. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 8, pp. 17–72. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1990a) Introducci´on al estudio de las literaturas tradicionales chibchas. Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 16, 1, pp. 55–96. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1990b) Una hip´otesis sobre la localizaci´on del protochibcha y la dispersi´on de sus descendientes. Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 16, 2, pp. 111–23. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1991) Las lenguas del Area Intermedia: introducci´on a su estudio areal. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1993) La familia chibcha. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 75–125. Constenla Uma˜na, Adolfo and Enrique Margery Pe˜na (1991) Elementos de fonolog´ıa comparada choc´o. Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 17, 1–2, pp. 137–91. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Contreras, Constantino and M. Pilar Alvarez-Santullano Busch (1989) Los huilliches y su sistema verbal (Estudio introductorio). Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 27, pp. 39–65. Concepci´on, Chile. Coombs, David, Heidi Coombs and Robert Weber (1976) Gram´atica quechua San Mart´ın. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Cooper, John Montgomery (1917) Analytical and Critical Bibliography of the Tribes of Tierra del Fuego and Adjacent Territory. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 63. Washington. (1946a) The Southern Hunters: an introduction. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 13–15. (1946b) The Chono. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 47–54. (1946c) The Yahgan. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 81–106. (1946d). The Ona. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 107–25. Corbera Mori, Angel (2000) Aspectos de la morfolog´ıa nominal aguaruna (j´ıbaro). In: van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 213–23. Cordero, Luis (1967 [1892]) Diccionario Quichua–Espa˜nol Espa˜nol–Quichua. Cuenca: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cuenca (1992 edition, Quito: Corporaci´on Editora Nacional). Correa, Fran¸cois and Ximena Pach´on, eds. (1987) Introducci´on a la Colombia amerindia. Bogot´a: Editorial Presencia. Correal Urrego, Gonzalo and (1977) Investigaciones arqueol´ogicas en los abrigos rocosos del Tequendama: 12,000 a˜nos de historia del hombre y su medio ambiente en la altiplanicie de Bogot´a.Bogot´a: Fondo de Promoci´on de la Cultura del Banco Popular. Cotari, Daniel, Jaime Mej´ıa and V´ıctor Carrasco (1978) Diccionario Aymara–Castellano Castellano–Aymara. Cochabamba: Instituto de Idiomas Padres de Maryknoll. Courtney, Ellen (2000) Duplication in the L2 Spanish produced by Quechua-speaking children: transfer of a pragmatic strategy. In: Dicky Gilbers, John Nerbonne and Jos Schaeken (eds.), Languages in Contact, pp. 87–98. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Craig, Colette (1991) Ways to go in Rama. In: Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization,vol. 2, pp. 455–92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (1992) A constitutional response to language endangerment: the case of Nicaragua. Language 68, 1, pp. 17–24. Creider, Chet (1967) Fonolog´ıa del quechua de Picoy. In: Escobar et al. (1967), pp. 41–52. Cr´equi-Montfort, Georges de and Paul Rivet (1925–7) La langue uru ou pukina. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 17 (1925), pp. 211–44; 18 (1926), pp. 111–39; 19 (1927), pp. 57–116. References 637

Crevels, Mily, Hein van der Voort, S´ergio Meira and Simon van de Kerke, eds. (2002) Current Studies on South American Languages. (Contributions to the 50th International Congress of Americanists, Warsaw, 2000). Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series no. 3. Leiden: Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies. Croese, Robert A. (1980) Estudio dialectol´ogico del mapuche. Estudios Filol´ogicos 15, pp. 7–38. Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile. (1985) Mapuche dialect survey. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 784–801. (1990) Evidencias lexicales y gramaticales para una posible filiaci´on del mapudungu con la macro familia arawak. In: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 275–90 (republished in 1991 in: Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnoling¨u´ısticos 6, pp. 283–96, Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor). Cuba Manrique, Mar´ıa del Carmen (2000) Vocabulario de Tauribara. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2, pp. 13–40. Cuervo, Rufino Jos´e (1867) Apuntaciones cr´ıticas sobre el lenguaje bogotano. (9th corrected edition, 1955.) Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Curnow, Timothy Jowan (1997) A Grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): an indigenous language of south-western Colombia. PhD diss. Australian National University, Canberra. (1998) Why P´aez is not a Barbacoan language: the nonexistence of ‘Moguex’ and the use of early sources. International Journal of American Linguistics 64, 4, pp. 338–51. (MS) Conjunct/Disjunct in the Barbacoan Languages of South America. Curnow, Timothy Jowan and Anthony J. Liddicoat (1998) The Barbacoan languages of Colombia and Ecuador. Anthropological Linguistics 40, 3, pp. 384–408. Cusihuaman Guti´errez, Antonio (1976a) Gram´atica quechua Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976b) Diccionario quechua Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Darwin, Charles (1983 [1906]) The Voyage of the ‘Beagle’. London, etc.: Dent. Davidson Jr, Joseph O. (1977) A Contrastive Study of the Grammatical Structures of Aymara and Cuzco Quechua. PhD diss. University of California, Berkeley. Davis, Irvine (1968) Some Macro-Jˆe relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 34, 1, pp. 42–47 (reprinted in: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 286–303). Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, Sabine (1985) Un aporte a la reconstrucci´on del vocabulario agr´ıcola de laepoca ´ incaica. Diccionarios y textos quechuas del siglo XVI y comienzos del XVII usados como fuentes hist´orico-etnoling¨u´ısticas para el vocabulario agr´ıcola. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 14. Bonn: Universit¨at Bonn, Seminar f¨ur V¨olkerkunde. (1990) Inka pachaq llamanpa willaynin: uso y crianza de los cam´elidos en laepoca ´ incaica. Estudio ling¨u´ıstico y etnohist´orico basado en las fuentes lexicogr´aficas y textuales del primer siglo despu´es de la conquista. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 16. Bonn: Universit¨at Bonn, Seminar f¨ur V¨olkerkunde. (1994) El arte verbal de los textos quechuas de Huarochir´ı(Per´u, siglo XVII) reflejado en la organizaci´on del discurso y en los medios estil´ısticos. In: Beyersdorff and Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz (1994), pp. 21–49. Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, Sabine and Juan de Dios Yapita Moya (1994) Las oraciones compuestas en aymara – aproximaciones para su comprensi´on y su estudio. In: Cole et al. (1994), pp. 126–50. Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, Sabine and Lindsey Crickmay, eds. (1999) The Language of Christianisation in Latin America: Catechisation and Instruction in Amerindian Languages. Bonner Amerikanistische Studien 32 / Centre for Indigenous American Studies and Exchange – St Andrews Occasional Papers 29. Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein. 638 References

Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, Sabine, Carmen Arellano Hoffmann, Eva K¨onig, and Heiko Pr¨umers, eds. (1998) 50 Years Americanist Studies at the University of Bonn. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 30. Bonn and Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein. D´el´etroz Favre, Alain (1993) Huk kutis kaq kasqa...Relatos del distrito de Coaza (Carabaya, Puno). Cuzco: Instituto de Pastoral Andina. Derbyshire, Desmond C. (1986) Comparative survey of morphology and syntax in Brazilian Arawakan. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1986), pp. 469–566. (1987) Morphosyntactic areal characteristics of Amazonian languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 53, 3, pp. 311–26. Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds. (1986–98) Handbook of Amazonian Languages,vol. 1 (1986); vol. 2 (1990); vol. 3 (1991), vol. 4 (1998). D´ıaz-Fern´andez, Antonio Edmundo (1992) Aprenda mapuzungun! Viedma, R´ıo Negro: Fundaci´on Ameghino. Dickinson, Connie (1999) Semantic and pragmatic dimensions of Tsafiki evidential and mirative markers. Chicago Linguistic Society 35. The Panels, pp. 29–44. (2000) in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24, 2, pp. 379–421. (2002) Complex Predicates in Tsafiki. PhD diss. University of Oregon, Eugene. Dietrich, Wolf (1986) El idioma chiriguano. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica, Instituto de Cooperaci´on Iberoamericana. (1990) More Evidence for an Internal Classification of Tupi-Guaran´ı Languages. Indiana, Supplement 12. Berlin. Diez , Alvaro and David Murillo (1998) Pueblos ind´ıgenas de las tierras bajas: caracter´ısticas principales.LaPaz: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarollo. Dillehay, Tom D. (1989–97) Monte Verde: a Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile,2vols. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, eds. (1999) The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dostal, Walter, ed. (1972) The Situation of the Indian in South America. Geneva: World Council of Churches. Duff, Martha (1957) A syntactical analysis of an Amuesha (Arawak) text. International Journal of American Linguistics 23, 3, pp. 171–8. Duff-Tripp, Martha (1997) Gram´atica del idioma Yanesha (Amuesha). Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 43. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1998) Diccionario Yanesha (Amuesha) ∼ Castellano. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 47. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Dum´ezil, Georges (1954) Remarques sur les six premiers noms de nombre du turc. Studia Linguistica 8, 1, pp. 1–15. Lund. (1955) Remarques compl´ementaires sur les six premiers noms de nombre du turc et du quechua. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 44, pp. 17–37. (1956) Structure du quechua (dialecte cuzqu´enien). Travaux de Linguistique 1, pp. 125–34. Paris: Klincksieck. D¨ummler, Christiane (1997) La Nueva Granada como campo de labor ling¨u´ıstico-misionera: presentaci´onyan´alisis de varias obras de laepoca ´ colonial. In: Zimmermann (1997), pp. 413–32. Duque G´omez, Luis (1970) Los Quimbayas.Bogot´a: Instituto Colombiano de Antropolog´ıa. Durbin, Marshall (1985) A survey of the family. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 325–70. Durbin, Marshall and Hayd´ee Seijas (1973a) A note on Opon-Carare. Zeitschrift f¨ur Ethnologie 98, 1–2, pp. 242–5. Braunschweig. (1973b) A note on Panche, Pijao, Pantagora (Palenque), Colima and Muzo. International Journal of American Linguistics 39, 1, pp. 47–51. References 639

(1973c) Proto Hianacoto: Guaque–Carijona–Hianacoto–Umaua. International Journal of American Linguistics 39, 1, pp. 22–31. (1975) The phonological structure of the western Carib languages of the Sierra de Perij´a, Venezuela (1). In: Cerulli and Della Ragione (1975), pp. 69–77. Duviols, Pierre (1971) La lutte contre les religions autochtones dans le P´erou colonial. ‘L’extirpation de l’idolˆatrie’ entre 1532 et 1660. Lima: Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines. ed. (1993) Religions des Andes et langues indig`enes. Equateur-P´erou-Bolivie avant et apr`es la conquˆete espagnole. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Universit´edeProvence. Eakin, Lucille (1991) Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma yaminahua. Documento de Trabajo 22. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Ebbing, Juan Enrique (1965) Gram´atica y diccionario aimara.LaPaz: Editorial ‘Don Bosco’. Echeverr´ıa Weasson, Sergio (1964) Descripci´on fonol´ogica del mapuche actual. Bolet´ın del Instituto de Filolog´ıa de la Universidad de Chile 16, pp. 13–59. Santiago de Chile. Echeverr´ıa, Max S. and Heles Contreras (1965) Araucanian phonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 31, 2, pp. 132–35. Echeverr´ıa y Reyes, An´ıbal (1967) La lengua atacame˜na. Revista de Cultura Universitaria Ancora 3, pp. 89–100. Antofagasta (first published in 1890 as Noticias sobre la lengua atacame˜na, Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Nacional). Eckstein, Susan, ed. (1989) Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements. Berkeley: University of California Press. Eguillor, Mar´ıa Isabel (1989) Educaci´on intercultural biling¨ue , una alternativa a la situaci´on actual. Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 10, pp. 55–82. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). Elson, Benjamin Franklin, ed. (1962) Studies in Ecuadorian Indian Languages,vol. 1. Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics. England, Nora Clearman (1988) Sufijos verbales derivacionales. In: Hardman et al. (1988), pp. 94–137. Ercilla, Alonso de (1969 [1569–1589]) La Araucana. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria. Escalante Guti´errez, Carmen and Ricardo Valderrama Fern´andez (1992) Nosotros los humanos. Nuqanchik˜ runakuna. Testimonios de los quechuas del siglo XX. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Escobar, Alberto (1967) Fonolog´ıa del quechua de Yanacocha. In: Escobar et al. (1967), pp. 7–24. ed. (1972) El reto del multiling¨uismo en el Per´u. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Escobar, Alberto, Gary Parker, Chet Creider and Rodolfo Cerr´on (1967) Cuatro fonolog´ıas quechuas. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. Escobar, Ana Mar´ıa (1990) Los biling¨ues y el castellano en el Per´u. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (2000) Contacto social y ling¨u´ıstico. El espa˜nol en contacto con el quechua en Per´u. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica. Escribens Trisano, Augusto (1977) Fonolog´ıa del quechua de Ferre˜nafe. Documento de Trabajo 37. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. Espejo Ayka, Elvira (1994) Jichha na: parlt’a:. Ahora les voy a narrar, ed. Denise Y. Arnold and Juan de Dios Yapita Moya. La Paz: UNICEF, Casa de las Am´ericas (Havana). Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar, ed. (1964) Visita hecha a la provincia de Chucuito por Garci Diez de San Miguel en el a˜no 1567. Lima: Ediciones de la Casa de la Cultura del Per´u. (1977) La poliginia se˜norial en el reino de Caxamarca. Revista del Museo Nacional 63, pp. 399–466. Lima. Fabre, Alain (1995) Lexical similarities between Uru-Chipaya and Pano-Takanan languages: genetic relationship or areal diffusion? Opci´on, 11, 18, pp. 45–73. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia. 640 References

(1998) Manual de las lenguas ind´ıgenas sudamericanas,2vols. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. (2002) Algunos rasgos tipol´ogicos del Kams´a(Valle de Sibundoy, Alto Putumayo, sudoeste de Colombia), vistos desde una perspectiva areal. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 169–98. Faller, Martina (2002) Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD diss., Stanford University, Stanford. Fals Borda, Orlando (1976) Capitalismo, hacienda y poblamiento en la costa atl´antica.Bogot´a: Punta de Lanza. Farf´an, Jos´e Mar´ıa B. (1947–51) Colecci´on de textos quechuas del Per´u central. Revista del Museo Nacional 16, pp. 85–122; 17, pp. 120–50; 18, pp. 121–66; 19–20, pp. 191–269. Lima. (1952–3) Textos del Haqe-aru o Kawki. Revista del Museo Nacional 21 (1952), pp. 77–91; 22 (1953), pp. 61–74. Lima. (1955) Estudio de un vocabulario de las Lenguas Quechua, Aymara y Haqe-aru. Revista del Museo Nacional 24, pp. 81–99. Lima. (1961) Diccionario conciso Castellano–Haqearu–Quechua. Revista del Museo Nacional 30, pp. 19–40. Lima. Fast, Peter W. (1953) Amuesha (Arawak) phonemes. International Journal of American Linguistics 19, 3, pp. 191–4. Faust, Norma W. (1972) Gram´atica Cocama: lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma cocama. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 6. Lima, Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Fawcett, Percy Harrison (1953) Exploration Fawcett. London: Hutchinson. Febr´es, Andr´es (1764) Arte de la lengua general del reino de Chile (reprinted in 1975 by Ediciones Cabildo, Vaduz, Georgetown). Fern´andez Garay, Ana V.(1989a) Situaci´on de la lengua tehuelche a mediados del siglo XIX. Un caso de muerte de lengua. Cuadernos del Sur 21/22, pp. 113–30. Bah´ıa Blanca: Universidad Nacional del Sur, Departamento de Humanidades. (1989b) Aspectos dialectales del ranquel. Actas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche 3, pp. 73–90. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera. (1991) Phonology of Ranquel and phonological comparisons with other Mapuche dialects. In: Key (1991), pp. 97–110. (1993a) G´enero y sexo en tehuelche. In:Viegas Barros and Stell (1993), pp. 95–106. (1993b) Le tehuelche. Description d’une langue en train de disparaˆıtre. Doctoral thesis, Universit´edelaSorbonne, Paris V, Paris. (1995) La posesi´on en tehuelche. In: Fern´andez Garay and Viegas Barros (1995), pp. 251–8. (1996) Situaci´on de las lenguas ind´ıgenas en la Provincia de Chubut, Argentina. Lengua y Literatura Mapuche 7, pp. 75–86. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera. (1997a) El sustrato tehuelche en una variedad del mapuche argentino. II Jornadas de Etnoling¨u´ıstica,vol.1, pp. 199–205. Rosario: Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Departamento de Etnoling¨u´ıstica, Escuela de Antropolog´ıa, Facultad de Humanidades y Artes. (1997b) Testimonios de losultimos ´ Tehuelches. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1998a) Una ceremonia tehuelche entre los ranqueles. Memorias de las Jornadas Ranquelinas, pp. 111–17. Santa Rosa, La Pampa: Gobierno de la Provincia de La Pampa. (1998b) Afijos y modalidades en el verbo ranquel. In: Golluscio and Kuramochi (1998), pp. 19–34. (1998c) El tehuelche. Una lengua en v´ıas de extinci´on. Estudios Filol´ogicos, Anejo 15. Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades. References 641

(2001) Ranquel–Espa˜nol Espa˜nol–Ranquel, diccionario de una variedad mapuche de La Pampa (Argentina) Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series no. 2. Leiden: Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies. (2002) Testimonios de losultimos ´ Ranqueles. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Fern´andez Garay, Ana V.and Luc´ıa Golluscio, eds. (2002) Temas de Ling¨u´ıstica Aborigen II. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Fern´andez Garay, Ana V.and Jos´ePedro Viegas Barros, eds. (1995) Actas II Jornadas de Ling¨u´ıstica Aborigen (Buenos Aires, 15–18 November 1994). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Fern´andez de Oviedo y Valdez, Gonzalo (1851–5) Historia general y natural de las Indias, Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Oc´eano,4vols. Madrid: Imprenta de la Real Academia de la Historia. Ferrario, Benigno (1956) La dialettologia ed i problemi interni della Runa-Simi (vulgo Qu´echua). Orbis 5, pp. 131–40. Louvain. (MS c.1957) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas del Uruguay. Ferrell Ram´ırez, Marco A. (1996) Textos aimaras en Guaman Poma. Revista Andina 14, 2, pp. 413–55. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. Fiedel, Stuart J. (1992) Prehistory of the Americas (1st edition 1987). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Figueredo, Juan de (1964 [1700]) Vocabulario de la lengua chinchaisuyo y algunos modos mas usados en dicha lengua. In: Luis A. Pardo and Carlos Galimberti Miranda (eds.), Diego de Torres Rubio: Arte de la lengua quichua, pp. 112–20. Cuzco: H. G. Rozas. Firestone, Homer L. (1965) Description and classification of Sirion´o. The Hague: Mouton. Fischer, Manuela and Konrad Th. Preuss (1989) Mitos Kogi. Quito: Abya-Yala. Fischermann, Bernd (1988) Zur Weltsicht der Ayor´eode Ostboliviens. PhD diss. University of Bonn. Flores Reyna, Manuel (1996) Tras las huellas de una lengua perdida. La lengua culle de la sierra norte del Per´u. Paper read at the First Encounter of Peruvianists (Universidad de Lima, September 1996). Lima. Flornoy, Bertrand (1938) Contributional’´ ` etude de la langue j´ıvaro ousuor. ˇ Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 30, pp. 333–41. Floyd, Rick (1999) The Structure of Evidential Categories in . Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Fontanella de Weinberg, Mar´ıa Beatriz (1967) Componential analysis of personal affixes in Araucanian. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 4, pp. 305–8. (1976) La lengua espa˜nola fuera de Espa˜na. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidos. Foster, George (1960) Culture and Conquest: America’s Spanish Heritage. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Frank, Erwin H., with Javier Villacorte Bustamante, Chaparo Villacorte M¨ea and C. Santiago M¨ea (1990) Mitos de los uni. En¨ex ca Santa Martanu ic¨e Unin bana ic¨en. Quito: Abya-Yala. Frank, Paul S. (1985) The verb phrase in Ika. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 4, pp. 57–99. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1990) Ika Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Friede, Juan (1952) Consideraciones sobre la lengua andaki. Revista de Antropolog´ıa y Etnolog´ıa 6, pp 187–222. Madrid. (1953) Los Andak´ı 1538–1947.M´exico: Fondo de Cultura Econ´omica. 642 References

Friedemann, Nina S. de and Jaime Arocha Rodr´ıguez (1982) Herederos del Jaguar y la Anaconda (2nd edition 1985). Bogot´a: Carlos Valencia. Friedemann, Nina S. de and Carlos Pati˜no Rosselli (1983) Lengua y sociedad en el Palenque de San Basilio.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Furlong, Guillermo (1941) Entre los lules de Tucum´an. Buenos Aires: Talleres Gr´aficos ‘San Pablo’. Fuss, Max and J¨urgen Riester (1986) Vocabulario Espa˜nol–Chiquito y Chiquito–Espa˜nol. In: Riester (1986b), pp. 115–385. Galeote Torno, Jes´us (1993) Manityana auki bes¨ıro. Gram´atica moderna de la lengua chiquitana y vocabulario b´asico (2nd edition 1996). Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Centro de Estudios Chiquitanos. Garc´ıa Hierro, Pedro, Søren Hvalkof and Andrew Gray (1998) Liberation through Land Rights in the Peruvian Amazon. IWGIA Document 90. Copenhagen: International Work Group of Indigenous Affairs. Garc´ıa Tom´as, Mar´ıa Dolores (1993–4) Buscando nuestas ra´ıces,4vols. Lima: Centro Amaz´onico de Antropolog´ıa y Aplicaci´on Pr´actica (CAAAP). Garcilaso de la Vega (1959 [1609]) Comentarios Reales de los Incas,4vols. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Garro, J. Eugenio (1942) The northern Kechuan dialects of Peru. American Anthropologist 44, pp. 442–50. Gelles, Paul H. and Gabriela Mart´ınez Escobar (1996) Andean Lives: Gregorio Condori Mamani and Asunta Quispe Huam´an. Austin: University of Texas Press. Gerdel, Florence (1973) P´aez phonemes. Linguistics 104, pp. 28–48. Gerdel, Florence and Marianna Slocum (1981) Estudios en p´aez.S´erie Sint´actica no. 12. Lomalinda: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (Editorial Townsend). Gerzenstein, Ana (1968) Fonolog´ıa de la lengua g¨un¨una-k¨ena. Cuadernos de ling¨u´ıstica ind´ıgena 5. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Centro de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. (1978–9) Lengua chorote,vol. 1 (1978); vol. 2 (1979). Archivo de lenguas precolombinas 3. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1983) Lengua chorote. Variedad No. 2. Archivo de lenguas precolombinas 4. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1989) Lengua mak´a: aspectos de la fonolog´ıa. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1994) Lengua mak´a: estudio descriptivo. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1999) Diccionario etnoling¨u´ıstico Mak´a–Espa˜nol (DELME). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Gibson, Michael Luke (1996) El muniche: un idioma que se extingue. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 42. Yarinacocha: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Gilij, Filippo Salvadore (1780–4) Saggio di storia americana, o sia, Storia naturale, civile e sacra dei regni, e delle provincie spagnuole di Terra-Ferma nell’America Meridionale descritto dall’abate F.S. Gilij,4vols. Rome. Gill, Wayne (undated) Diccionario Tsimane–Castellano.New Tribes Mission, Bolivia. Girard, Victor (1971) Proto-Takanan Phonology. University of California Publications in Linguistics 70. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Girault, Louis (1984) Kallawaya, gu´erisseurs itin´erants des Andes.Paris: Editions de l’ORSTOM. (1989) Kallawaya: el idioma secreto de los Incas: Diccionario.LaPaz: Unicef, Panamerican Health Organisation (OPS) and World Health Organisation (OMS). References 643

Gleich, Utta von (1989a) Educaci´on primaria biling¨ue intercultural en Am´erica Latina. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). (1989b) Actitudes ling¨u´ısticas entre hablantes biling¨ues en Ayacucho. In: L´opez et al. (1989), p. 97–122. (1992) Changes in the status and function of Quechua. In: Ulrich Ammon and Marlis Hellinger (eds.), Status Change of Languages, pp. 43–64. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. (1998) El impacto ling¨u´ıstico de la migraci´on: ¿desplazamiento, cambio o descomposici´on del quechua? In: Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz et al. (1998), pp. 679–704. (2001) Multilingualism and Multilingual Literacies in Latin American Educational Systems. Working Papers in Multilingualism 28. Sonderforschungsbereich 538: Mehrsprachigkeit. Hamburg: University of Hamburg. Gnerre, Maurizio (1975) L’utilizzazione delle fonti documentarie dei secoli XVI e XVII per la storia linguistica J´ıbaro. In: Cerulli and Della Ragione (1975), pp. 79–86. (1986) The decline of dialogue: ceremonial and mythological discourse among the Shuar and Achuar. In: Sherzer and Urban (1986), pp. 307–41. Godenzzi, Juan Carlos (1986) Pronombres de objeto directo e indirecto del castellano en Puno. Lexis 10, pp. 187–201. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1991) Discordancias gramaticales del castellano andino en Puno (Peru). Lexis 14, pp. 107–18. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. ed. (1992) El quechua en debate. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. Golbert de Goodbar, Perla (1975) Epu pe˜niwen (‘los dos hermanos’). Cuento tradicional araucano. Buenos Aires: Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Educaci´on, Secci´on Lenguas Ind´ıgenas, Instituto Torcuato di Tello. (1977–8) Yag´an I. Las partes de la oraci´on, II. Morfolog´ıa nominal. VICUS Cuadernos. Ling¨u´ıstica 1 (1977), pp. 87–101; 2 (1978), pp. 5–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (1985) Hacia una morfolog´ıa verbal del Yag´an. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 4, pp. 421–4. Golluscio, Luc´ıa (1998) Aspecto verbal en mapudungun. In: Golluscio and Kuramochi (1998), pp. 35–47. Golluscio, Luc´ıa and Yosuke Kuramochi, eds. (1998) Ling¨u´ıstica y literatura mapuche. Aproximaciones desde ambos lados de los Andes (Trabajos del I Simposio Binacional de Ling¨u´ıstica y Literatura Ind´ıgenas, Temuco, 23–25 October 1995). Temuco: Universidad Cat´olica de Temuco; Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires. G´omez-Imbert, Elsa (1982) De la forme et du sens dans la classification nominale en tatuyo. Th`ese de troisi`eme cycle, Universit´e Sorbonne-Paris IV. Paris. (2000) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de la Amazonia septentrional de Colombia. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 317–20. Gonzales de Barc´ıa Carballido y Z´u˜niga, Andr´es, ed. (1737–8) Ep´ıtome de la biblioteca oriental y occidental, n´autica y geogr´afica de Don Antonio de Le´on Pinelo,3vols. Madrid: Francisco Mart´ınez Abad. Gonz´alez Holgu´ın, Diego (1607) Gram´atica y arte nueva de la lengua general de todo el Per´u llamada lengua qquichua o lengua del Inca. Lima: Francisco del Canto (1842 edition, Genoa: Pagano). (1608) Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua qquichua o del Inca. Lima: Francisco del Canto. (1952 edition by Ra´ul Porras Barrenechea, Lima: Imprenta Santa Mar´ıa; 1989 reprint, Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos). Gonz´alez N´˜ a˜nez, Omar (2000) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas del Amazonas venezolano. In: Queixal´os and Renault-Lescure (2000), pp. 385–418. 644 References

Gonz´alez de P´erez, Mar´ıa Stella (1980) Trayectoria de los estudios sobre la lengua chibcha o muisca.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1987) ‘Diccionario y gram´atica chibcha’. Manuscrito an´onimo de la Biblioteca Nacional de Colombia.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Gonz´alez de P´erez, Mar´ıa Stella and Mar´ıa Luisa Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000) Lenguas ind´ıgenas de Colombia. Una visi´on descriptiva.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Gordon, Alan M. (1980) Notas sobre la fon´etica del castellano en Bolivia. Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Hispanistas (Toronto), pp. 349–51. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Goulet, Jean-Guy (1981) The Guajiro kinship system: its semantic structure and social significance. Anthropological Linguistics 23, 7, pp. 298–325. Granda, Germ´an de (1977) Estudios sobre unarea ´ dialectal hispanoamericana de poblaci´on negra. Las tierras bajas occidentales de Colombia. Publicaciones del Instituto Caro y Cuervo 61. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1993) Quechua y espa˜nol en el noroeste argentino. Una precisi´on y dos interrogantes. Lexis 17, pp. 259–74. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1995) Un quechuismo morfosint´actico en dosareas ´ extremas del espa˜nol andino. Las per´ıfrasis verbales de gerundio con valor perfectivo en el noroeste argentino y el sur de Colombia. Anuario de Ling¨u´ıstica Hisp´anica 11, pp. 153–9. Valladolid. (1996) Origen y mantenimiento de un rasgo sint´actico (o dos) del espa˜nol andino. La omisi´on de cliticos preverbales. Lexis 20, pp. 275–98. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1997a) Replantamiento de un tema controvertido. G´enesis y retenci´on del doble posesivo en el espa˜nol andino. Revista de Filolog´ıa Espa˜nola 77, pp. 139–7. (1997b) Un fen´omeno de convergencia ling¨u´ıstica por contacto en el quechua de Santiago del Estero. El desarrollo del futuro perifr´astico. Estudios Filol´ogicos 32, pp. 35–42. Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades. (2001) Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica andina. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Grasserie, Raoul de la (1894) Langue puquina.Paris: Jean Maisonneuve. Gray, Andrew (1986) And after the Gold Rush. . .? Human Rights and Self-Development among the Amarakaeri of Southeastern Peru. IWGIA Document 55. Copenhagen: International Working Group of Indigenous Affairs. (1996) Mythology, Spirituality and History in an Amazonian Community,vol. 1 The Arakmbut of Amazonian Peru. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1959) Linguistic classification of South America. In: Steward and Faron (1959), pp. 22–3. (1960a) The general classification of Central and South American languages. In: Anthony Wallace (ed.), Men and Cultures: Selected Papers of the 5th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (1956), pp. 791–4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. (1960b) Linguistic classification of South America. In: Sol Tax (ed.), Aboriginal languages of Latin America. Current Anthropology 1, 5–6, pp. 431–6. Chicago. (1966) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language (2nd edition), pp. 73–113. Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press. (1987) Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Greenberg, Joseph H., Christy G. Turner II and Stephen L. Zegura (1985) Convergence of evidence for the peopling of the Americas. Collegium Antropologicum 9, 1, pp. 33–42. Zagreb. References 645

(1986) The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evidence. Current Anthropology 27, 477–88. Grimes, Barbara F., ed. (1996) Ethnologue (13th edition). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Grimes, Joseph (1985) Topic inflection in Mapudungun verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 2, pp. 141–63. Grinevald, Colette (2002) Nominal classification in Movima. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 215–39. Grondona, Ver´onica Mar´ıa (1998) A Grammar of Mocov´ı. PhD diss. University of Pittsburgh. Groot de Mahecha, Ana Mar´ıa and Eva Maria Hooykaas (1991) Intento de delimitaci´on del territorio de los gruposetnicos ´ pastos y quillacingas en el altiplano nari˜nense.Bogot´a: Banco de la Rep´ublica. Gualdieri, Cecilia Beatriz (1998) Mocovi (Guaicuru). Fonologia e morfosintaxe. Doctoral diss., Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil. Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe (1936 [1615]) Nueva cor´onica y buen gobierno.Paris: Universit´e de Paris, Institut d’Ethnologie. Guerra Eissmann, Ana Mar´ıa (1995) Los sintemas del yagan. In: Fern´andez Garay and Viegas Barros (1995), pp. 271–6 Gugenberger, Eva (1995) Identit¨ats- und Sprachkonflikt in einer pluriethnischen Gesellschaft. Eine soziolinguistische Studieuber ¨ Quechua-Sprecher und -Sprecherinnen in Peru.Vienna: WUV-Universit¨atsverlag. Guillaume, Antoine (2000) Le Cavine˜na (langue Takana de Bolivie):el´ ´ ements de morpho- syntaxe. M´emoire de DEA de Science du Langage. Lyon: Universit´e Lumi`ere Lyon 2. Gusinde, Martin (1926) Das Lautsystem der feuerl¨andischen Sprachen. Anthropos 21, pp. 1000–24. (1931–7) Die Feuerland-Indianer I: die Selk’nam (1931); II: Die Yamana (1937). M¨odling near Vienna: Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift Anthropos. Guyot, Mireille (1968) Les mythes chez les Selk’nam et les Yamana de la Terre du Feu.Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie. Haan, Harry de (MS) Nouns in Chiquitano. Rotterdam: Erasmus University. Haboud, Marleen (1996) Quechua and Spanish in the Ecuadorian Andes: the effects of prolonged contact. PhD diss. University of Oregon (Spanish version appeared as Haboud 1998). (1998) Quichua y castellano en los Andes ecuatorianos: los efectos de un contacto prolongado. Quito: Abya-Yala. Haboud de Ortega, Marleen (1985) La variante ling¨u´ıstica del poblador rural y su influencia en la educaci´on (San Pedro de Casta, Huarochir´ı). Revista de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Ecuador 13, 43, pp. 137–64. Haboud de Ortega, Marleen, Luis Montaluisa Chasiquiza, Fabi´an Muenala Pineda and Froil´an Viteri Gualinga (1982) Caiminucanchic ˜ shimiyuc-panca. Quito: Ministerio de Educaci´on y Cultura, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica. Hammerly Dupuy, Daniel (1947) Clasificaci´on del nuevo grupo ling¨u´ıstico Aksan´as de la Patagonia occidental. Ciencia e Investigaci´on 3, 12, pp. 492–501. Buenos Aires. Hamp, Eric P. (1967) On Maya–Chipayan. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 1, pp. 74–6. (1971) On Mayan–Araucanian comparative phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 37, 3, pp. 156–9. Hardman, Martha James (1966) Jaqaru: Outline of Phonological and Morphological Structures. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. (1975) Proto-Jaqi: reconstrucci´on del sistema de personas gramaticales. Revista del Museo Nacional 41, pp. 433–56. Lima. 646 References

(1978a) La familia ling¨u´ıstica andina jaqi: Jaqaru, Kawki, Aymara. VICUS Cuadernos. Ling¨u´ıstica 2, pp. 5–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (1978b). Jaqi: the linguistic family. International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 2, pp. 146–53. ed. (1981) The Aymara Language in its Social and Cultural Context. A collection of essays on aspects of Aymara language and culture. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida. (1983a) Jaqaru. Compendio de estructura fonol´ogica y morfol´ogica. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos e Instituto Indigenista Interamericano. (1983b) Jaqaru short vowels. International Journal of American Linguistics 49, 2, pp. 186–95. (1986) Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In: Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, pp. 113–36. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. (2000) Jaqaru. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Hardman, Martha James, Juana V´asquez and Juan de Dios Yapita Moya (1974) Outline of Aymara Phonological and Grammatical Structure. Gainesville: University of Florida. (1988) Aymara: compendio de estructura fonol´ogica y gramatical.LaPaz: Ediciones ILCA (Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara); Gainesville: The Aymara Foundation. Hardman-de-Bautista, M. J. see Hardman, Martha James. Harmelink, Bryan L. (1987) The uses and functions of ‘mew’ in Mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 14, pp. 173–8. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile. (1988) The expression of temporal distinctions in Mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 15, pp. 125–30. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile. (1990) El hablante como punto de referencia en el espacio: Verbos de movimiento y sufijos direccionales en mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 17, pp. 111–25. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile. (1992) La incorporaci´on nominal en el mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 19, pp. 129–38. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile. Harms, Philip Lee (1994) Epena Pedee Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. Harner, Michael (1972) The Jivaros.New York: Doubleday. Harrington, John Peabody (1943) Hokan discovered in South America. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 33, pp. 334–44. Washington. (1944) Sobre fon´etica . Anales del Instituto de Arqueolog´ıa y Etnolog´ıa 5, pp. 127–8. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Harris, Olivia (1974) Los laymis y machas del norte de Potos´ı. Semana – Ultima Hora (11–10–1974). La Paz. Hart, Helen (1988) Diccionario Chayahuita–Castellano. Canponanqu¨e nisha nisha nonacaso. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 29. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Hart, Raymond E. (1963) Semantic components of shape in Amarakaeri grammar. Anthropological Linguistics 5, 9, pp. 1–7. Hartmann, Roswith (1979) ¿Quechuismo preincaico en el Ecuador? Ibero-amerikanisches Archiv 5, 3, pp. 267–99. (1980) Lenguas abor´ıgenes del Ecuador. Historia del Ecuador 4, pp. 60–2. Barcelona and Quito. Haude, Katharina (2003) Zur Semantik von Direktionalit¨at und ihren Erweiterungen: das Suffix -su im Aymara. Arbeitspapier Nr. 45 (Neue Folge). Cologne: Institut f¨ur Sprachwissenschaft, Universit¨at zu K¨oln. Havestadt, Bernardus (1777) Chilid´ug´u sive res chilensis,2vols. M¨unster, Westfalen. References 647

Hawkins, John A. (1979) Implicational universals as predictors of word order change. Language 55, pp. 618–48. Hayes, Bruce (1982) Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry 13, pp. 227–76. Headland, Edna de (1977) Introducci´on al tunebo.Bogot´a: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Headland, Edna Romayne (1997) Diccionario biling¨ue Uw Cuwa (tunebo)-Espa˜nol Espa˜nol-Uw Cuwa (tunebo) con una gram´atica uw cuwa (tunebo).Bogot´a: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Helberg Ch´avez, Heinrich A. (1984) Skizze einer Grammatik des Amarakaeri. PhD diss. University of T¨ubingen. (1990) An´alisis funcional del verbo amarakaeri. In: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 227–49. Hemming, John (1973) The Conquest of the Incas (1st edition 1970). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. (1978) The Search for Eldorado. London: Michael Joseph. Hermon, Gabriella (1985) Modularity in Syntax: Evidence from Quechua and Other Languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Hern´andez, Graciela Beatriz (1992) Southern Tehuelche mythology according to an unpublished manuscript. Latin American Literatures Journal 8, 2, pp. 115–42. Hern´andez, Isabel (1992) Los indios de Argentina. Madrid: Ediciones MAPFRE (2nd edition in 1995, Quito: Abya-Yala). Herrero, Joaqu´ın (1969) Apuntes del castellano hablado en Bolivia. Bolet´ın de Filolog´ıa Espa˜nola 16, pp. 37–43. Madrid: Instituto ‘Miguel de Cervantes’. Herrero, Joaqu´ın, Daniel Cotari and Jaime Mej´ıa (1978) Lecciones de aymara: NivelesIyII(2nd edition). Cochabamba: Instituto de Idiomas, Padres de Maryknoll. Herrero, Joaqu´ın, and Federico S´anchez de Lozada (1978) Gram´atica quechua. Estructura del quechua boliviano contempor´aneo. Cochabamba: Editorial Universo. Herv´as y Panduro, Lorenzo (1784) Catalogo delle lingue conosciute e notizia della loro affinit`ae diversit`a.Part1of: Idea dell’universo: che contiene la storia della vita dell’uomo, elementi cosmografici, viaggio estatico al mondo planetario, e storie della terra e delle lingue (1784–7). Cesena: Biasini. (1800–5) Cat´alogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas, y numeraci´on, divisi´on, y clases de estas seg´un la diversidad de sus idiomas y dialectos,6vols. (vol. 1: Lenguas y naciones americanas). Madrid. Hildebrandt, Martha (1963) Diccionario Guajiro–Espa˜nol. Caracas: Comisi´on Indigenista, Ministerio de Justicia. Hintz, Daniel John (2000) Caracter´ısticas distintivas del quechua de Corongo. Perspectivas hist´orica y sincr´onica. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 50. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Hoff, Berend Jacob (1968) The Carib Language. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Holmer, Nils Magnus (1946) Outline of Cuna grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 12, 4, pp. 185–97. (1947) Critical and Comparative Grammar of the Cuna Language. Etnologiska Studier 14. G¨oteborg: Etnografiska Museet. (1949) Goajiro (Arawak). International Journal of American Linguistics 15, 1, pp. 45–56; 15, 2, pp. 110–20; 15, 3, pp. 145–57; 15, 4, pp. 232–5. (1951) Cuna Chrestomathy. Etnologiska studier 18. G¨oteborg: Etnografiska museet. (1952) Ethnolinguistic Cuna Dictionary. Etnologiska studier 19. G¨oteborg: Etnografiska museet. (1953) Contribuci´on a la ling¨u´ıstica de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Revista Colombiana de Antropolog´ıa,1,pp. 311–355. 648 References

Holmer, Nils Magnus and S. Henry Wass´en (1953) The Complete Mu-Igala in Picture Writing: a native record of a Cuna Indian medicine song. Etnologiska studier 21. G¨oteborg: Etnografiska museet. Holt, Dennis (1989) On Paya . Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 8, pp. 7–15. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Hornberger, Nancy H. (1988) Bilingual Education and Language Maintenance: a southern Peruvian case. Dordrecht and Providence, RI: Foris Publications. (1989) Haku yachaywasiman: la educaci´on biling¨ue y el futuro del quechua en Puno (Spanish edition of Hornberger 1988). Lima and Puno: Programa de educaci´on biling¨ue de Puno. Hos´okawa, Koomei (1980) Diagn´ostico socioling¨u´ıstico de la regi´on Norte de Potos´ı.LaPaz: Instituto Nacional de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Hout, Roeland van and Pieter C. Muysken (1994) Modelling lexical borrowability. Language Variation and Change 6, pp. 39–62. Hovdhaugen, Even (1992) A grammar without a tradition? Fernando de la Carrera’s ‘Arte de la lengua yunga’ (1644). In: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Diversions of Galway: Papers on the History of Linguistics from ICHoLS V (Galway, 1–6 September 1990), pp. 113–22. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Howard, Linda (1977a) Esquema de los tipos de p´arrafo en cams´a. In: Howard and Sch¨ottelndreyer (1977), pp. 1–67. (1977b) Cams´a: certain features of verb inflection as related to paragraph types. In: Robert E. Longacre (ed), Discourse Grammar: Studies in Indigenous Languages of Colombia, Panam´a, and Ecuador, part 2, pp. 273–99. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. (1979) Fonolog´ıa del cams´a. In: Sistemas fonol´ogicos de idiomas colombianos,vol. 1, pp. 77–92. Lomalinda: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano, Editorial Townsend. Howard, Linda and Mareike Sch¨ottelndreyer (1977) Estudios en cams´aycat´ıo. Lomalinda: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano, Editorial Townsend. Howard, Rosaleen (MS) From ‘Coca Cola’ to ‘Inca Kola’: Quechua and the Politics of Language Identity in the Andes. University of Liverpool. Howard-Malverde, Rosaleen (1981) Dioses y diablos, tradici´on oral de Ca˜nar, Ecuador. Amerindia num´ero sp´ecial 1. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1990) The Speaking of History: ‘Willapaakushayki’ or Quechua Ways of Telling the Past. London: University of London, Institute of Latin American Studies. (1995) ‘ is a Spanish word’: linguistic tension between Aymara, Quechua, and Spanish in northern Potos´ı (Bolivia). Anthropological Linguistics 37, 2, pp. 141–68. ed. (1997) Creating Context in Andean Cultures.New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howkins, Douglas W. (1973) A Quechua Legend of Peru: Yaku runa or ‘River Man’. Glasgow: University of Glasgow, Institute of Latin American Studies. Hoyos Ben´ıtez, Mario Edgar (2000) Informe sobre la lengua ember´a del r´ıo Napip´ı. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 73–83. Huber, Randall Q. and Robert B. Reed (1992) Comparative Vocabulary: Selected Words in Indigenous Languages of Colombia.Bogot´a: Asociaci´on Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1836) Uber¨ die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java, nebst einer Einleitung uber¨ die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: K¨onigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. (1971) Linguistic Variability and Intellectual Development, trans. George C. Buck and Frithjof A. Raven. Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press. References 649

Husson, Jean-Philippe (1985) La po´esie quechua dans la chronique de Felipe Waman Puma de Ayala. De l’art lyrique de cour aux chants et danses populaires.Paris: L’Harmattan. (2001) La Mort d’Ataw Wallpa ou La fin de l’empire des Incas. Trag´edie anonyme en langue quechua du milieu du XVIesi`ecle. Geneva: Editions Pati˜no. Ibarra Grasso, Dick (1958) Lenguas ind´ıgenas americanas. Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova. (1982) Lenguas ind´ıgenas de Bolivia.LaPaz: Editorial Juventud. Imbelloni, Jos´e (1926) El idioma de los Incas del Per´uenelgrupo ling¨u´ıstico melanesio-polin´esico. In: Jos´e Imbelloni (ed.), La esfinge indiana. Antiguos y nuevos aspectos de los or´ıgenes americanos, pp. 352–68. Buenos Aires: El Ateneo. (1928) L’idioma Kichua nel sistema linguistico dell’Oceano Pacifico. Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti (1926), vol. 2, pp. 495–509. Rome. Inda, Lorenzo and Pieter C. Muysken (MS 2002) El idioma uchumataqu. Irohito: Distrito Nacionalidad Ind´ıgena Urus de Irohito. Instituto Ind´ıgenista Interamericano (1993) Am´erica Ind´ıgena 53, 4. Mexico DF. Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (1973) Vocablos y expresiones m´edicos m´as usuales en veinte idiomas vern´aculos peruanos. Lima. (1979) Palabras y frasesutiles ´ en algunos idiomas de la selva peruana. Lima. Irala, Jos´e S., Francisco R´aez and Jos´e Gregorio Castro (1905) Vocabulario pol´ıglota incaico. Lima: Colegio de Propaganda Fide del Per´u (1998 edition by Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino, Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on). Isbell, William H. and Katherina J. Schreiber (1978) Was Huari a state? American Antiquity 43, 3, pp. 372–89. Itier, C´esar (1991) Lengua general y comunicaci´on escrita: cinco cartas en quechua de Cotahuasi – 1616. Revista Andina 9, 1, pp. 65–107. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1992) La tradici´on oral quechua antigua en los procesos de idolatr´ıas de Cajatambo. Bulletin de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines 21, 3, pp. 1009–51. Lima. (1995) El teatro quechua en el Cuzco,vol. 1: Dramas y comedias de Nemesio Z´u˜niga Cazorla. Lima: Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1997) Parlons quechua. La langue du Cuzco.Paris: L’Harmattan. Jackson, Jean (1983) The Fish People: Linguistic Exogamy and Tukanoan Identity in Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jahn, Alfredo (1927) Los abor´ıgenes del occidente de Venezuela. Su historia, etnograf´ıa y afinidades ling¨u´ısticas. Caracas: El Comercio (2nd edition 1972, Caracas: Monte Avila). Jake, Janice L. (1985) Grammatical Relations in Imbabura Quechua.New York and London: Garland Publishing. Jamioy Muchavisoy, Jos´e Narciso (1992) Tiempo, aspecto y modo en kam¨ent¨s´a. In: II Congreso del CCELA. Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes: Memorias 2, pp. 199–208. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes. (1995) La lengua nativa es parte de la ‘identidad ind´ıgena’. In: Pab´on Triana (1995b), pp. 9–18. Jaramillo G´omez, Orlando (1987a) Bar´ı. In: Correa and Pach´on (1987), pp. 63–73. (1987b) Yuko-yukpa. In: Correa and Pach´on (1987), pp. 75–82. Jensen, Cheryl (1998) Comparative Tup´ı-Guaran´ı syntax. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1998), pp. 489–616. Jij´on y Caama˜no, Jacinto (1936–8) Sebasti´an de Benalc´azar,vol. 1 (1936) Quito: Imprenta del Clero; vol. 2 (1938) Quito: Editorial Ecuatoriana. (1940–5) El Ecuador interandino y occidental antes de la conquista castellana,vol. 1 (1940), vol. 2 (1941), vol. 3 (1943), vol. 4 (1945). Quito: Editorial Ecuatoriana (1998 edition, Quito: Abya-Yala). 650 References

Jim´enez de la Espada, Marcos, ed. (1965 [1586]) Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias: Per´u,3vols. Biblioteca de Autores Espa˜noles 183–5. Madrid: Atlas. Jim´enez Tur´on, S. (1989) La educaci´on intercultural biling¨ue entre los Yekuana de Venezuela. Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 10, pp. 83–90. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). Jones, Wendell and Paula Jones (1991) Barasano Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Juajibioy Chindoy, Alberto (1962) Breve estudio preliminar del grupo aborigen de Sibundoy y su lengua cams´aenelsur de Colombia. Bolet´ın del Instituto de Antropolog´ıa 2, 8. Medell´ın: Universidad de Antioquia. Juajibioy Chindoy, Alberto and Alva Wheeler (1973) Bosquejo etnoling¨u´ıstico del grupo kams´a de Sibundoy.Bogot´a: Ministerio de Gobierno. Juank, Aij´ıu (1982) Aujmatsatai, yatsuchi. Manual de aprendizaje de la lengua shuar,vol. 1 (2nd edition). Ecuador: Mundo Shuar. Judy, Robert A. and Judith Judy (1962) Movima y castellano.Vocabularios bolivianos 1. Cochabamba: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (1967) Movima. In: Matteson (1967), 2, pp. 353–408. Julien, Catherine Jean (1979) Koli: a language spoken on the Peruvian coast. Andean Perspective Newsletter 3, pp. 5–11. Austin: University of Texas, Institute of Latin American Studies. (1983) Hatunqolla: a View of Inca Rule from the Lake Titicaca Basin. University of California Publications in Anthropology 15. Berkeley: University of California Press. Juncosa, Jos´eE.(2000) Mapa ling¨u´ıstico de la Amazonia ecuatoriana. In: Queixal´os and Renault-Lescure (2000), pp. 263–75. Jung, Ingrid (1989) Grammatik des P´aez: ein Abriss. PhD diss. University of Osnabr¨uck. (1991) Das Zweisprachenprojekt in Puno-Peru. Erziehungspolitik im Sprachen- und Kulturkonflikt. Bildungsreport Nr. 51. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (2000) El p´aez. Breve descripci´on. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 139–49. Jusay´u, Miguel Angel and Jes´us Olza Zubiri (1981) Diccionario de la lengua guajira. Castellano–Guajiro. Caracas: Universidad Cat´olica Andr´es Bello, Maracaibo: Corpozulia. (1988) Diccionario sistem´atico de la lengua guajira. Caracas: Universidad Cat´olica Andr´es Bello. Kany, Charles F. (1945) American Spanish Syntax. Chicago: Chicago University Press. (1947) Some aspects of Bolivian popular speech. Hispanic Review 15: pp. 193–206. Karsten, Rafael (1932) Indian tribes of the Argentine and Bolivian Chaco. Ethnological Studies. Helsingfors: Akademiska Bokhandeln. Leipzig: Harassowitz. (1935) The Head-hunters of Western Amazonas: the Life and Culture of the Jibaro Indians of Eastern Ecuador and Peru. Helsingfors: Akademiska Bokhandeln. Leipzig: Harassowitz. Kaufman, Terrence S. (1990) Language history in South America: what we know and how to know more. In: Doris L. Payne, (1990a), pp. 13–73. (1994) The native languages of South America. In: Moseley and Asher (1994), pp. 46–76. Keatinge, Richard W., ed. (1988a) Peruvian Prehistory: an Overview of Pre-Inca and Inca Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1988b) A summary view of Peruvian prehistory. In: Keatinge (1988a), pp. 303–16. Kensinger, Kenneth M. et al. (1975) The Cashinahua of Eastern Peru. Providence, RI: Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology. (1985) Panoan linguistic, folkloristic and ethnographic research. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 224–85. References 651

Kerke, Simon C. van de (1996) Affix Order and Interpretation in Bolivian Quechua. PhD diss. University of Amsterdam. (1998) Verb formation in Leko: causatives, reflexives and reciprocals. In: Leonid Kulikov and Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of Verbal Categories. Papers Presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, pp. 195–203. T¨ubingen: Niemeyer. (1999) A 19th century Christian doctrine in the Leko language. In: Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz and Crickmay (1999), pp. 115–50. (2000) Case marking in the Leko language. In: van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 25–37. (2002) Complex verb formation in Leko. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 241–54. Key, Harold (1967) Morphology of Cayuvava. The Hague: Mouton. Key, Mary Ritchie (1968) Comparative Tacanan Phonology. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. (1978) Araucanian genetic relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 4, pp. 280–93. (1979) The Grouping of South American Indian Languages.T¨ubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. ed. (1991) Language Change in South American Indian languages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Key, Mary Ritchie and Christos Clairis (1978) Fuegian and central South American language relationships. Actes du 42`eme Congr`es International des Am´ericanistes (Paris, 2–9 September 1976), vol. 4, pp. 635–45. Paris: Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes, Mus´ee de l’Homme. King, Kendall A. (2000) Inspecting the unexpected: language status and corpus shifts as aspects of Quichua . Language Problems and Language Planning 22, pp. 109–32. Kingsley Noble, G. (1965) Proto-Arawakan and its Descendants. The Hague: Mouton; Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kirtchuk, Pablo (1987) Le parler quechua de Santiago del Estero: quelques particularit´es. Amerindia 12, pp. 95–110. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. Klee, Carol A. (1996) The influence of Quechua on Spanish language structure. In: Ana Roca and John B. Jensen (eds.), Spanish in Contact, pp. 73–91. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press. Klein, Harriet E. Manelis (1973) A Grammar of Argentine Toba: Verbal and Nominal Morphology. PhD diss. Columbia University. (1978) Una gram´atica de la lengua toba. Morfolog´ıa verbal y nominal. Montevideo: Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Universidad de la Rep´ublica. (1981) Location and direction in Toba: verbal morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 47, 3, pp. 227–35. (1985) Current status of Argentine indigenous languages. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 691–731. Klein, Harriet E. Manelis and Louisa R. Stark, eds. (1985a) South American Indian Languages: Retrospect and Prospect. Austin: University of Texas Press. (1985b). Indian languages of the Paraguayan Chaco. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 802–45. Kramer, Fritz (1990) Literature among the Cuna Indians.G¨oteborg: Etnografiska museet. Krauss, Michael (1992) The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68, pp. 4–10. Kr¨usi, Martin and Dorothy Kr¨usi (1978a) Phonology of Chiquitano. Work Papers of SIL-Bolivia 1972–1976, pp. 53–93. Riberalta: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1978b) The use of modes in Chiquitano discourse. Work Papers of SIL-Bolivia 1972–1976, pp. 95–162. Riberalta. Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Krzanowski, Andrzej and Szemi´nski, Jan (1978) La toponimia ind´ıgena en la cuenca del r´ıo Chicama (Per´u). Estudios Latinoamericanos 4. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Ladefoged, Peter (1975) A Course in Phonetics.New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. 652 References

Lafone Quevedo, Samuel A. (1894a) Los Lules. Bolet´ın del Instituto Geogr´afico Argentino 15, pp. 185–246. Buenos Aires. (1894b) Calepino Lule-Castellano. Vade mecum para el Arte del Padre Antonio Machoni S.I. Bolet´ın del Instituto Geogr´afico Argentino 15, pp. 305–85. Buenos Aires. (1895) La lengua vilela o chulup´ı. Estudio de filolog´ıa chaco-argentina fundados sobre los trabajos de Herv´as, Adelung y Pelleschi. Bolet´ın del Instituto Geogr´afico Argentino 16, pp. 39–125. Buenos Aires. Lagos Altamirano, Daniel S. (1981) El estrato f´onico del mapudungu(n). Revista del Pac´ıfico 19–20, pp. 42–66. Valpara´ıso. Lak¨amper-Acebey, Renate (2001) Plural- und Objektmarkierung in Quechua. Doctoral diss., Philosophische Fakult¨at, Heinrich-Heine-Universit¨at, D¨usseldorf. Lak¨amper, Renate and Dieter Wunderlich (1998) Person marking in Quechua: a constraint-based minimalist analysis. Lingua 105: pp. 113–48. Landaburu, Jon (1979) La langue des Andoke (Amazonie colombienne).Paris: Soci´et´edEtudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. (1988) El sistema de designaci´on de la persona sujeto en la lengua ika. Amerindia 13, pp. 157–67. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1992) La langue ika ou arhuaco: morphosyntaxe du noyau verbal. Amerindia 17, pp. 1–30. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. ed. (1994) Estructuras sint´acticas de la predicaci´on: lenguas amerindias de Colombia. Bulletin de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines 23, 3. Bogot´a: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes, Universidad de los Andes. ed. (1996–9) Documentos sobre lenguas abor´ıgenes de Colombia del archivo de Paul Rivet, vol. 1: Lenguas de la Amazon´ıa colombiana (1996a), vol. 2: Lenguas de la Orinoqu´ıa y del Norte de Colombia (1998), vol. 3: Lenguas del Sur de Colombia (1999). Bogot´a: Editorial Uniandes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes and Colciencias. (1996b) La langue ika ou arhuaco: phonologie. Amerindia 21, pp. 21–36. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (2000a) La lengua Ika. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 733–48. (2000b) Clasificaci´on de las lenguas ind´ıgenas de Colombia. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 25–48. Landerman, Peter N. (1973) Vocabulario quechua del Pastaza. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 8. Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1978) The Proto-Quechua first person marker and the classification of Quechua dialects. Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Andean Linguistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (1991) Quechua Dialects and their Classification. PhD diss. University of California, Los Angeles. (1994) and aspiration in Quechua and Aymara reconsidered. In: Cole et al. (1994), pp. 332–78. Laprade, Richard (1981) Some cases of Aymara influence on La Paz Spanish. In: Hardman (1981), pp. 207–27. Lara, Jes´us, ed. (1957) Tragedia del fin de Atawallpa. Cochabamba: Edici´on Universitaria. (1969) La literatura de los quechuas. Ensayo y antolog´ıa (2nd edition). La Paz: Juventud. (1971) Diccionario Qh¨eswa–Castellano Castellano–Qh¨eswa. Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Larra´ın Barros, Horacio (1991) Limpia de canales de Toconce: descripci´on de una ceremonia-faena tradicional. Hombre y Desierto 5, pp. 3–19. Antofagasta: Universidad de Antofagasta, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropol´ogicas. References 653

Lastra, Yolanda (1968) Cochabamba Quechua Syntax. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Lathrap, Donald W. (1970) The Upper Amazon. London: Thames and Hudson; New York: Praeger. Lefebvre, Claire (1984) Grammaires en contact: d´efinitions et perspectives de recherche. Revue qu´eb´ecoise de linguistique 14, 11–48. Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter C. Muysken (1982) Relative Clauses in Cuzco Quechua: Interactions between Core and Periphery. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. (1988) Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lehmann, Walter (MS 1929) Vocabulario de la lengua uro. Berlin: Ibero-amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Lehmann-Nitsche, Robert (1913) El grupo ling¨u´ıstico Tshon de los territorios magall´anicos. Revista del Museo de la Plata 22, pp. 217–76. Buenos Aires. (1926) Vocabulario mataco (Chaco salte˜no) con bibliograf´ıa. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias 28, 3–4, pp. 251–66. C´ordoba, Argentina. Lehnert Santander, Roberto (1976) La lengua kunza y sus textos. Cuadernos de Filolog´ıa 5, pp. 71–80. Antofagasta: Universidad de Chile, Instituto de Literatura Nortina. (1987) En torno a la lengua kunza. Language Sciences 9, 1, pp. 103–12. (1991) Pr´estamos del runa-simi a la lengua kunza. Hombre y Desierto 5, pp. 30–48. Antofagasta: Universidad de Antofagasta, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropol´ogicas. Lemle, Miriam (1971) Internal classification of the Tupi-Guaran´ı linguistic family. In: Tupi Studies I. SIL Papers in Linguistics 29, pp. 107–29. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Lengerke, Geo von (1878a) Palabras de los dialectos de los indios del Opone. Zeitschrift f¨ur Ethnologie 10, pp. 306. (1878b) Palabras indias dictadas por un indio de la tribu de Carare. Zeitschrift f¨ur Ethnologie 10, p. 306. Lenz, Roberto (1893) Beitr¨age zur Kenntnis des Amerikospanischen I. Zeitschrift f¨ur romanische Philologie 17, pp. 188–214. Halle: Max Niemeyer (published in Spanish as ‘Para el conocimiento del espa˜nol de Am´erica’ in: Alonso and Lida (1940), pp. 209–58. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires. (1895–7) Estudios araucanos. Materiales para el estudio de la lengua, la literatura y las costumbres de los indios mapuches o araucanos. Santiago: Imprenta Cervantes (originally published in 12 separate articles in the volumes 90–1, 93–4 and 97–8 of the Anales de la Universidad de Chile). (1905–10) Los elementos indios del castellano de Chile. Estudio ling¨u´ıstico y etnol´ogico. Diccionario etimol´ogico de las voces chilenas derivadas de lenguas ind´ıgenas americanas. Annex to Anales de la Universidad de Chile. Santiago: Imprenta Cervantes. L´evi-Strauss, Claude (1948) Sur certaines similarit´es structurales des langues chibcha et nambikwara. Actes du 28`eme Congr`es International des Am´ericanistes (1947), pp. 185–92. Paris. (1952) Race et histoire.Paris: Unesco (1961 edition, Paris: Gauthier). Levinsohn, Stephen H. (1976) The Inga Language. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Liccardi, Millicent (1968) Itonama intonation and phonemes. Linguistics 38, pp. 36–41. Liedtke, Stefan (1996) The Languages of the ‘First Nations’: Comparison of Native American Languages from an Ethnolinguistic Perspective. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Lindskoog, John N. and Ruth M. Brend (1962) Cayapa phonemics. In: Elson (1962), pp. 31–44. Lindskoog, John N. and Carrie A. Lindskoog (1964) Vocabulario cayapa.M´exico: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. 654 References

Lipski, John M. (1987) The Chota valley: Afro-Hispanic language in highland Ecuador. Latin American Research Review 22, pp. 155–70. (1994) Latin American Spanish. London: Longmans Linguistics Library. Lira, Jorge A. (1941) Diccionario Kkechuwa–Espa˜nol.Tucum´an: Universidad Nacional de Tucum´an (1982 edition, Bogot´a: Cuadernos Culturales Andinos 5). (1990) Cuentos del Alto Urubamba. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. Llam´ın Canulaf, Segundo (1987) Federiconi ˜ n¨utram,4vols. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial K¨ume Dungu. Llanos Vargas, H´ector and Roberto Pineda Camacho (1982) Etnohistoria del Gran Caquet´a (Siglos XVI–XIX).Bogot´a: Fundaci´on de Investigaciones Arqueol´ogicas Nacionales and Banco de la R´epublica. Llerena Villalobos, Rito (1987) Relaci´on y determinaci´on en el predicado de la lengua kuna. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1994) Sintaxis de la predicaci´on de la lengua Ep˜˜ era oriental del Alto And´agueda. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 437–62. ed. (1995) Estudios fonol´ogicos del grupo choc´o.Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (2000) Elementos de gram´atica y fonolog´ıa de la lengua cuna. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 59–71. Loewen, Jacob Abraham (1960) Spanish loan words in Waunana. International Journal of American Linguistics 26, 4, pp. 330–4. (1963a) Choc´oI:introduction and bibliography. International Journal of American Linguistics 29, 3, pp. 239–63. (1963b) Choc´o II: phonological problems. International Journal of American Linguistics 29, 4, pp. 357–71. Long, Violeta (1985) Estudio de la lengua guambiana. University of St Andrews Centre for Latin American Studies Working Paper No. 20. Larnaca, Cyprus. Longacre, Robert E. (1968) Comparative reconstruction of indigenous languages. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics 4: Ibero-American and Caribbean Linguistics, pp. 320–60. The Hague: Mouton. Loos, Eugene (1969) The Phonology of Capanahua and its Grammatical Basis. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Loos, Eugene and Betty Loos (1998) Diccionario Capanahua–Castellano.Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. L´opez, Lorenzo E., ed. (1985) N. Federmann, U. Schmidl: Alemanes en Am´erica. Madrid: Historia 16. L´opez, Luis Enrique, ed. (1988) Pesquisas en ling¨u´ıstica andina. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnolog´ıa (CONCYTEC). Puno: Universidad del Altiplano and Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). (1990) El biling¨uismo de los unos y de los otros: diglosia y conflicto ling¨u´ıstico en el Per´u. In: Ball´on Aguirre and Cerr´on-Palomino (1990), pp. 91–130. L´opez, Luis Enrique and Ingrid Jung (MS 1987) Las dimensiones pol´ıticas de una escritura: el caso del quechua en el Per´u. (1989) El castellano del y el castellano del libro. In: L´opez et al. (1989), pp. 197–217. eds. (1998) Sobre las huellas de la voz. Socioling¨u´ıstica de la oralidad y la escritura en su relaci´on con la educaci´on. Madrid: Ediciones Morata; Cochabamba, Bolivia: Programa de Formaci´on de Educaci´on Intercultural Biling¨ue para los Paises Andinos (PROEIB Andes); Bonn: Deutsche Stiftung f¨ur internationale Entwicklung. References 655

L´opez, Luis Enrique and Domingo Sayritupac Asqui, eds. (1985) Winay ˜ pacha I. Chucuito and Puno: Instituto de Estudios Aymara. eds. (1990) Winay ˜ pacha (Tierra y tiempo eternos) II. Puno: Academia de la Lengua Aymara. L´opez, Luis Enrique, In´es Pozzi Escot, and Madeleine Z´u˜niga, eds. (1989) Temas de ling¨u´ıstica aplicada (Actas del Primer Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Ling¨u´ıstico-Filol´ogicas, Lima, November 1987). Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnolog´ıa (CONCYTEC), Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). L´opez Garc´ıa, Angel (1995) Gram´atica muisca. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Loukotka, Cestm´ˇ ır (1935) Clasificaci´on de las lenguas sudamericanas. Ling¨u´ıstica sudamericana, nr. 1. Prague. (1968) Classification of South American Indian Languages, ed. Johannes Wilbert. Los Angeles: University of California (UCLA), Latin American Center. Lowes, R. H. G. (1954) Alphabetical list of Lengua Indian words with English equivalents (Paraguayan Chaco). Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 43, pp. 85–107. Lozano, Anthony G. (1975) Syntactic borrowing in Spanish from Quechua: the noun phrase. In: Rosal´ıa Avalos de Matos and Rogger Ravines (eds.), Ling¨u´ıstica e indigenismo moderno de Am´erica. Actas y memorias del XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas 5 (Lima, 1970), pp. 297–305. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Lozano, Elena (1970) Textos vilelas.LaPlata: Universida Nacional de La Plata, Facultad de Humanidades. (1977) Cuentos secretos vilelas: I. La mujer tigre. VICUS Cuadernos. Ling¨u´ıstica 1, pp. 93–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lozano, Pedro (1754–5) Historia de la Compa˜n´ıa de Jes´us en la provincia del Paraguay,2vols. Madrid: Viuda de Manuel Fern´andez, Supremo Consejo de la Inquisici´on. (1874–5) Historia de la conquista del Paraguay, R´ıo de la Plata y Tucum´an,5vols. Buenos Aires. Lucca, Manuel de (1987) Diccionario pr´actico Aymara–Castellano Castellano–Aymara.LaPaz, Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Lucena Salmoral, Manuel, ed. (1967–70) Gram´atica chibcha del siglo XVII. Revista Colombiana de Antropolog´ıa 13 (1967), pp. 31–90; 14 (1970), pp. 203–20. Bogot´a. Lugo, Bernardo de (1619) Gram´atica de la lengua general del Nuevo Reyno, llamada mosca. Madrid: Bernardino de Guzm´an (1978 edition, Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica and Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperaci´on). Luj´an, Marta, Liliana Minaya and David Sankoff (1981) El Principio de Consistencia Universal en el habla de los ni˜nos biling¨ues peruanos. Lexis 5, 1, pp. 95–110. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1984) The Universal Consistency Hypothesis and the prediction of word order acquisition stages in the speech of bilingual children. Language 60, pp. 343–71. Lumbreras, Luis G. (1974) The Peoples and Cultures of Ancient Peru.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Lussagnet, Suzanne, ed. (1958) Ignace Chom´e. Arte de la lengua zamuca (1738–1745). Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 47, pp. 121–79. (1961–2) Vocabulaires samuku, morotoko, poturero et guara˜noka, pr´ec´ed´es d’uneetude ´ historique et g´eographique sur les anciens Samuku du Chaco bolivien et leurs voisins. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 50 (1961), pp. 185–243; 51 (1962), pp. 35–64. Lynch, Thomas F. ed. (1980) Guitarrero Cave: Early Man in the Andes.New York: Academic Press. (1999) The earliest South American lifeways. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1, pp. 188–263. 656 References

Lyon, Patricia Jean, ed. (1974) Native South Americans: Ethnology of the Least Known Continent. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company (republished in 1985 by Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Ill.) Macera, Pablo (1978) Visi´on hist´orica del Per´u (del Paleol´ıtico al Proceso de 1968). Lima: Milla Batres. Machoni de Cerde˜na, Antonio (1732) Arte y vocabulario de la lengua lule y tonocot´e. Madrid: Herederos de Garc´ıa Infanz´on (1877 edition, P. E. Coni, Buenos Aires). Mackert, Michael (1999) Horatio Hale’s grammatical sketches of languages of the American Northwest Coast: the case of Tsihaili-Selish. In: Nowak (1999), pp. 155–73. MacNeish, Richard Scott (1979) The early man remains from Pikimachay cave, Ayacucho basin, highland Peru. In: R. L. Humphrey and D. Stanford, Pre-Llano Cultures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities, pp. 1–48. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. McQuown, Norman A. (1955) The indigenous languages of Latin America. American Anthropologist, NS, 57, pp. 501–70. Malone, Terry (1997–1998) Mora, minimal foot and segmental phonology in Chimila. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 16–17, pp. 19–69. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Mannheim, Bruce (1984) Una naci´on acorralada: southern Peruvian Quechua language planning and politics in historical perspective. Language in Society 13, pp. 291–309. (1985a) Southern Peruvian Quechua. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 481–515. (1985b) Contact and Quechua-external genetic relationships. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 644–88. (1990) La cronolog´ıa relativa de la lengua y literatura cuzque˜na. Revista Andina 8, 1, pp. 139–78. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1991) The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion. Austin: University of Texas Press. Mannheim, Bruce and Madeleine Newfield (1982) Iconicity in phonological change. In: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference of Historical Linguistics, pp. 211–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mansen, Richard and David Captain (2000) El idioma wayuu (o guajiro). In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 795–810. Mansilla, Lucio Victorio (1947 [1890]) Una excursi´on a los indios ranqueles.Mexico, Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Econ´omica (published in English in 1997 as ‘An Expedition to the Ranquel Indians’, Austin: University of Texas Press). Markham, Clements R. (1911) The Incas of Peru. London: Smith, Elder and Co. M´arquez Miranda, Fernando (1943) Los textos millcayac del P. Luis de Valdivia con un vocabulario Espa˜nol–Allentiac–Millcayac. Revista del Museo de La Plata, NS, 2, Secci´on de Antropolog´ıa 12, pp. 61–223. La Plata: Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Mart´ın, Eusebia H. (1964) Notas sobre el cac´an y la toponimia del noroeste argentino. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Centro de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Martin, Laura (1988) Fonolog´ıa. In: Hardman et al. (1988) pp. 24–66. Mart´ınez, Angelita (2000) Lenguaje y cultura. Estrategias etnopragm´aticas en el uso de los pronombres cl´ıticos lo, la y le, en la Argentina, en zonas de contacto con lenguas abor´ıgenes. PhD diss. Leiden University. Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on, Baltasar Jaime (1985 [1782–90]) Trujillo del Per´uenelsiglo XVIII,vol. 2. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica. Mart´ınez Sarasola, Carlos (1992) Nuestros paisanos los Indios: vida, historia y destino de las comunidades ind´ıgenas de la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Emec´e Editores. References 657

Martins, Silvana and Valteir Martins (1999) Mak´u. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), pp. 251–67. Masferrer Kan, Elio (1983) Situaci´on social de los grupos ind´ıgenas. Informe Unesco N´umero III. M´exico DF. Mason, John Alden (1950) The languages of South American Indians. In: Steward (1950), pp. 157–317. Mata, Pedro de la (1748) Arte de la lengua cholona. MS Additional 24, 322. British Library, London (transcribed and edited by Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus, MS); see also Tello (1923). Matisoff, James (1990) On megalo-comparison, a discussion note. Language 66, pp. 106–20. Matteson, Esther (1965) The Piro (Arawakan) Language. University of California Publications in Linguistics 62. Berkeley: University of California Press. ed. (1967) Bolivian Indian Grammars,2vols. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. (1972) Proto Arawakan. In: Esther Matteson et al. Comparative Studies in Amerindian Languages, pp. 160–242. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Mayer, Enrique and Elio Masferrer (1979) La poblaci´on ind´ıgena de Am´erica en 1978. Am´erica Ind´ıgena 39, 2, pp. 211–338. Megenney, William W. (1986) El palenquero: un lenguaje post-criollo de Colombia.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Meggers, Betty Jane (1979) Climatic oscillation as a factor in the prehistory of Amazonia. American Antiquity 44, 2, pp. 252–66. Meillet, Antoine and Marcel Cohen, eds. (1924) Les langues du monde. Collection linguistique, vol. 16. Paris: Soci´et´e Linguistique de Paris (revised 1952 edition, Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). Meira, S´ergio (2000) A Reconstruction of Proto-Taranoan. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Mej´ıa Fonnegra, Gustavo (2000) Presentaci´on y descripci´on fonol´ogica y morfosint´actica del waunana. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 85–96. Mej´ıas, Hugo A. (1980) Pr´estamos de lenguas ind´ıgenas en el espa˜nol americano del siglo XVII. M´exico DF: Universidad Nacional Aut´onoma de M´exico. Mel´endez Lozano, Miguel Angel (1989) El nominal en achagua. In: Mel´endez Lozano and Tobar Ortiz (1989), pp. 3–66. (1998) La lengua achagua: estudio gramatical.Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (2000a) Rese˜na bibliogr´afica del chimila. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 789–91. (2000b) Rese˜na bibliogr´afica del tunebo. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 703–4. (2000c) Rese˜na bibliogr´afica del kams´a. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 135–7. (2000d) Rese˜na bibliogr´afica del kakua. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 561–2. Mel´endez Lozano, Miguel Angel & Nubia Tobar Ortiz (1989) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de Colombia: Descripciones no. 4: Orinoqu´ıa.Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. Meli`a, Bartomeu (1997) Pueblos ind´ıgenas en el Paraguay. Demograf´ıa hist´orica y an´alisis de los resultados del Censo Nacional de Poblaci´on y Viviendas, 1992.Fernando de la Mora: Direcci´on General de Estad´ıstica, Encuestas y Censos. Meneses Morales, Teodoro (1987) La Muerte de Atahuallpa. Drama quechua de autor an´onimo. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Menges, Patricia A. (1980) Acquisition of Spanish by Quichua Children in Ecuador: Some Aspects of Main-Verb Form, Frequency, and Function. MA thesis, University of Amsterdam. 658 References

Messineo, Mar´ıa Cristina (1989) Ling¨u´ıstica y educaci´on ind´ıgena. Una experiencia en comunidades toba de la provincia del Chaco (Argentina). Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 12, pp. 9–28. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). (2000) Estudio del toba hablado en la provincia del Chaco (Argentina). Aspectos gramaticales y discursivos. Doctoral diss. University of Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires. M´etraux, Alfred (1935–6) Les indiens uro-chipaya de Carangas. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 27, pp. 111–28, pp. 325–415; 28, pp. 155–207, pp. 337–94. (1936) Contributionsa ` l’ethnographie etal ` alinguistique des indiens uro d’Ancoaqui (Bolivie). Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 28, pp. 75–110. (1948) Tribes of the eastern slopes of the Bolivian Andes. In: Steward (1948), pp. 465–503. Middendorf, Ernst W. (1890–92) Die einheimischen Sprachen Perus.6volumes. 1. Das Runa-Simi oder die Keshua-Sprache wie sie gegenw¨artig in der Provinz Cuzco gesprochen wird (1890a) (published in Spanish in 1970 in a translation by Ernesto More as Gram´atica Keshua, Madrid: Aguilar). 2. W¨orterbuch des Runa-Simi oder der Keshua-Sprache (1890b). 3. Ollanta, ein Drama der Keshua-Sprache (1890c). 4. Dramatische und lyrische Dichtungen der Keshua-Sprache (1891a). 5. Die Aimar`a-Sprache (1891b). 6. Das Muchik oder die Chimu-Sprache mit einem Anhanguber ¨ die Chibcha-Sprache (1892). Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Migliazza, Ernest C. (1978a) Some Evidences for Panoan–Yanomama Genetic Relationship. Paper presented at the LSA Summer Meeting, Urbana, Ill. (MS 1978b) Pano–Tacana Northern Relationship. (1985) Languages of the Orinoco–Amazon region: current status. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 17–139. Migliazza, Ernest C. and Lyle Campbell (1988) Panorama general de las lenguas ind´ıgenas en Am´erica. Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia de Venezuela. Millones, Luis, ed. (1973) Un movimiento nativista: el Taki Onqoy. In: Ossio Acu˜na (1973), pp. 83–94. ed. (1990) El retorno de las Huacas: estudios y documentos sobre el Taki Onqoy, Siglo XVI. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Sociedad Peruana de Psicoan´alisis. Minaya, Liliana and Marta Luj´an (1982) Un patr´on sint´actico h´ıbrido en el habla de los ni˜nos biling¨ues en quechua y espa˜nol. Lexis 6, 2, pp. 271–93. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. Miranda Esquerre, Luis, ed. (2000) Actas I Congreso de Lenguas Ind´ıgenas de Sudam´erica (Lima, 4–6 August 1999), 2 vols. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma, Facultad de Lenguas Modernas. Miranda Mamani, Luis, Daniel Moricio Choque and Saturnina Alvarez de Moricio (1992) Memorias de un olvido. Testimonios de vida Uru-Muratos (edited by Rossana Barrag´an). La Paz: Fundaci´on para la Investigaci´on Antropol´ogica y el Etnodesarrollo ‘Antrop´ologos del Surandino’ (ASUR) and Editorial Hisbol. Mitre, Bartolom´e (1909–10) Cat´alogo razonado de la secci´on Lenguas Americanas,3vols. Buenos Aires: Museo Mitre. Moesbach, Ernesto Wilhelm de (1930) Vida y costumbres de los ind´ıgenas araucanos en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, presentadas en la autobiograf´ıa del ind´ıgena Pascual Co˜na. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes (new edition see Co˜na 1984). (1963) Idioma mapuche.Padre Las Casas, Chile: Imprenta y Editorial ‘San Francisco’. Mogoll´on P´erez, Mar´ıa Cristina (2000) Fonolog´ıa de la lengua bar´ı. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 719–27. Mogrovejo, Toribio Alfonso de (1920–1 [1593]) Diario de la segunda visita que hizo de su arquidi´ocesis el Ilustr´ısimo se˜nor don Toribio de Mogrovejo, arzobispo de Los Reyes. Revista del Archivo Nacional del Per´u,1(1920), pp. 49–81, 227–9, 401–19; 2 (1921), pp. 37–78. References 659

Molina, Crist´obal de (1574 [1989]) Relaci´on de las f´abulas y ritos de los Incas. In: Henrique Urbano and Pierre Duviols (eds.), C. de Molina, C. de Albornoz, F´abulas y mitos de los Incas, pp. 9–134. Madrid: Historia 16. Mongu´ıS´anchez, Jos´eRa´ul (1981) La lengua kame.ntz´a. Fonolog´ıa – fon´etica – textos.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Monta˜no Arag´on, Mario (1987–92) Gu´ıa etnogr´afica ling¨u´ıstica de Bolivia,vols. 1, 2 (1987–9): Tribus de la selva;vol. 3 (1992): Tribus del Altiplano y valles: primera parte.LaPaz: Editorial Don Bosco. Montes Rodr´ıguez, Mar´ıa Emilia (1995) Tonolog´ıa de la lengua ticuna.Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. Montoya, Rodrigo, Luis Montoya and Edwin Montoya (1987) La sangre de los cerros. Urqukunapa yawarnin (Antolog´ıa de la poes´ıa quechua que se canta en el Per´u),2vols. Lima: Centro Peruano de Estudios Sociales, Mosca Azul Editores and Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Moore, Bruce R. (1961) A statistical morpho-syntactic typological study of Colorado (Chibcha). International Journal of American Linguistics 27, 4, pp. 298–307. (1962) Correspondences in South Barbacoan Chibcha. In: Elson (1962), pp. 270–89. (1966) Diccionario Castellano–Colorado Colorado-Castellano. Quito: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Moore, Thomas H. (1878) Vocabulaire de la langue atacame˜na. Compte-Rendu de la Seconde Session du Congr`es International des Am´ericanistes,vol. 2, pp. 44–54. Luxemburg. Mortensen, Charles Arthur (1999) A Reference Grammar of the Northern Embera languages. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics International and the University of Texas at Arlington. Moseley, Chris and R. E. Asher, eds. (1994) Atlas of the World’s Languages. London: Routledge. Mosonyi, Esteban Emilio. (1972) Indian groups in Venezuela. In: Dostal (1972), pp. 388–91. (1993) Algunos problemas de clasificaci´on de las lenguas arawak (Colombia – Venezuela). In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 165–88. (2000) Introducci´on al an´alisis del idioma baniva. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 499–513. Mosonyi, Esteban Emilio and Jorge Carlos Mosonyi (2000) Manual de lenguas ind´ıgenas de Venezuela,2vols. Caracas: Fundaci´on Bigott. Mosonyi, Jorge Carlos (1987) Lenguas ind´ıgenas de Venezuela. Bolet´ın de Ling¨u´ıstica 6, pp. 20–40. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela. Mostny, Grete (1954) Peine, un pueblo atacame˜no. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile, Instituto de Geograf´ıa. Murra, John V. (1975) Formaciones econ´omicas y pol´ıticas del mundo andino. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Mur´ua, Mart´ın de (1987 [1613]) Historia general del Per´u. Madrid: Historia 16. Muysken, Pieter C. (1977) Syntactic Developments in the Verb Phrase of Ecuadorian Quechua. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press (also published by Foris, Dordrecht). (1979) La mezcla entre quechua y castellano. Lexis 3, 1, pp. 41–56. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1981a) Quechua word structure. In: F. Heny (ed.), Filters and Binding, pp. 279–329. London: Longmans. (1981b) Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: the case for relexification. In: Albert Valdman and Arnold Highfield (eds.), Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies, pp. 52–78. Ann Arbor: Karoma. (1984) The Spanish that Quechua speakers learn: L2 learning as norm-governed behaviour. In: R. W. Andersen (ed.), Second Languages: a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, pp. 101–24. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 660 References

(1986) Contactos entre quichua y castellano en el Ecuador. In: Segundo E. Moreno Y´anez (ed.), Memorias del Primer Simposio Europeo sobre Antropolog´ıa del Ecuador, pp. 377–451. Quito: Ediciones Abya Yala. (1997a) Media Lengua. In: Thomason (1997), pp. 365–426. (1997b) Callahuaya. In: Thomason (1997), pp. 427–47. (2000) Drawn into the Aymara mold? Notes on Uru grammar. In: van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 99–109. (MS 2002) The Uru Languages. Nijmegen. Myers, Sarah K. (1973) Language Shift among Migrants to Lima, Peru. Research Paper 147. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography. Najlis, Elena L. (1966) Lengua abipona,2vols. Archivo de lenguas precolombinas 1. Universidad de Buenos Aires: Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1973) Lengua selknam.Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 3. Buenos Aires: Universidad del Salvador. (1975) Diccionario selknam.Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 4. Buenos Aires: Universidad del Salvador. (1984) Fonolog´ıa de la protolengua mataguaya. Cuadernos de Ling¨u´ıstica Ind´ıgena 9. Universidad de Buenos Aires: Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Nardi, Ricardo L. J. (1962) El quechua de Catamarca y La Rioja. Cuadernos del Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Folkl´oricas 3, pp. 189–285. Buenos Aires. (1979) El kak´an, lengua de los Diaguitas. Sapiens 3, pp. 1–33. Chivilcoy (Buenos Aires): Museo Arqueol´ogico Dr Osvaldo F. A. Menghin. (2002) Introducci´on al quichua santiague˜no, ed. Lelia In´es Albarrac´ın, Mario C. Tebes and Jorge R. Alderetes. Asociaci´on de investigadores en lengua quechua (ADILQ), Tucum´an. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. Nebrija, Antonio de (c.1488) Introductiones Latinae. Salamanca (1981 edition, Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca). Neira, Alonso de and Juan Ribero (1928 [1762]) Arte y vocabulario de la lengua achagua. Doctrina Christiana, confesionario de uno y otro sexoe ´ instruccion de cathecumenos. In: Cat´alogo de la Real Biblioteca,vol. 6: Manuscritos. Lenguas de Am´erica, pp. 1–174. Madrid. Newson, Linda A. (1995) Life and Death in Early Colonial Ecuador. Norman Okla., and London: University of Oklahoma Press. Nieves Oviedo, Roc´ıo (1991a) La predicaci´on nominal en nasa yuwe. In: Rojas Curieux (1991c), pp. 101–38. (1991b) Fonolog´ıa: variante Caldono. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 9–42. (1991c) Fonolog´ıa comparada. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 121–50. (1991d) Fonolog´ıa: variante Paniquit´a. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 151–84. ed. (1991e) Estudios fonol´ogicos de la lengua p´aez (nasa yuwe).Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (2000) P´aez: Lista de Morris Swadesh. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 150–2. Ni˜no-Murcia, Mercedes (1995) The gerund in the Spanish of the north Andean region. In: Carmen Silva-Corval´an (ed.), Spanish in Four Continents. Studies in Language Contact and Bilingualism, pp. 83–100. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Nordenski¨old, Erland (1905) Uber¨ Quichua sprechende Indianer an der Ostabh¨angen der Anden im Grenzgebiet zwischen Peru und Bolivia. Globus 88, 7, pp. 101–8. (1912) Indianerleben. El Gran Chaco (S¨udamerika). Leipzig: Albert Bonnier. (1922) Deductions Suggested by the Geographical Distribution of some Post-Columbian Words Used by the Indians of South America. Comparative Ethnographical Studies 5. G¨oteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri. (1924) The Ethnography of South America Seen from Mojos in Bolivia. Comparative Ethnographical Studies 3. G¨oteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri. References 661

(1928–30) Picture-Writings and Other Documents,vol. 1 (1928) Comparative Ethnographical Studies 7, 1; vol. 2 (1930a) Comparative Ethnographical Studies 7, 2. G¨oteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri. (1930b) Modifications in Indian Culture through Inventions and Loans. Comparative Ethnographical Studies 8. G¨oteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri. (1938) An Historical and Ethnological Survey of the Cuna Indians (posthumous edition by S. Henry Wass´en). G¨oteborg: G¨oteborgs museum, etnografiska avdelningen. Nowak, Elke, ed. (1999) Languages Different in All their Sounds: Descriptive Approaches to Indigenous Languages of the Americas 1500 to 1850. Studium Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 31. M¨unster: Nodus. Nuckolls, Janis B. (1997) Sounds Like Life: Sound-Symbolic Grammar, Performance, and Cognition in Pastaza Quechua.New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Obando Ord´o˜nez, Pedro (1992) Awa-Kwaiker: an Outline Grammar of a Colombian–Ecuadorian Language, with a cultural sketch. PhD diss. University of Texas, Austin. Oblitas Poblete, Enrique (1968) El idioma secreto de los Incas. Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Olaya Perdomo, Noel (2000) Descripci´on preliminar del sistema verbal de la lengua kogui (o kawgi). In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 781–7. Olson, Ronald D. (1964) Mayan affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia 1: Correspondences. International Journal of American Linguistics 30, 4, pp. 313–24. (1965) Mayan affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia 2: Cognates. International Journal of American Linguistics 31, 1, pp. 29–38. (1967) The syllable in Chipaya. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 4, pp. 300–4. Olza Zubiri, Jes´us and Miguel Angel Jusay´u (1978) Gram´atica de la lengua guajira. Caracas: Universidad Cat´olica Andr´es Bello, Ministerio de Educaci´on. Olza Zubiri, Jes´us, Conchita Nuni de Chapi and Juan Tube (2002) Gram´atica moja ignaciana (morfosintaxis). San Crist´obal: Universidad del T´achira; Caracas: Universidad Cat´olica Andr´es Bello. Oramas, Luis R. (1913) Contribuci´on al estudio de la lengua guajira. Caracas: Publicaciones de la ‘Revista T´ecnica del Ministerio de Obras P´ublicas’ de los EE.UU. de Venezuela. (1916) Materiales para el estudio de los dialectos ayam´an, gay´on, jirajara, ajagua. Caracas: El Comercio. Orbigny, Alcide Dessalines d’ (1839) L’homme am´ericain (de l’Am´erique m´eridionale) consid´er´e sous ses rapports physiologiques et moraux.Paris. (1945) Viaje a laAm´erica meridional. Brasil. Rep´ublica del Uruguay. Rep´ublica Argentina. La Patagonia. Rep´ublica de Chile, Rep´ublica de Bolivia, Rep´ublica del Per´u. Realizado de 1826 a 1833. Buenos Aires: Editorial Futura. Or´e, Luis Jer´onimo de (1607) Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum. Naples. Oroz, Rodolfo (1966) La lengua castellana en Chile. Santiago: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Educaci´on, Instituto de Investigaciones Hist´orico-Culturales, Instituto de Filolog´ıa. Orr, Carolyn J. and Robert E. Longacre (1968) Proto Quechumaran. Language 44, pp. 528–55. Ortega Ricaurte, Carmen (1978) Los estudios sobre lenguas ind´ıgenas de Colombia.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Ortiz, Sergio El´ıas (1946) Los indios yurumangu´ıes. Acta Americana 4, pp. 10–25. (1965) Lenguas y dialectos ind´ıgenas de Colombia. Part 3 of Luis Duque G´omez (ed.), Historia extensa de Colombia,vol. I: Prehistoria. Academia Colombiana de Historia. Bogot´a: Ediciones Lerner. 662 References

Ortiz Ricaurte, Carolina (1989) La composici´on nominal en kogui. In: Trillos Amaya et al. (1989), pp. 181–272. (1994) Clases y tipos de predicados en la lengua kogui. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 377–99. (2000) La lengua kogui: fonolog´ıa y morfosintaxis nominal. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 757–80. Ossio Acu˜na, Juan Mar´ıa, ed. (1973) Ideolog´ıa mesi´anica del mundo andino. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor Ostler, Nicholas (1993) Cases, directionals and conjunctions in Chibcha. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 12, pp. 7–33. San Jos´e: Universidad de Costa Rica. (1994) Syntactic typology of Muisca–asketch. In: Cole et al. (1994), pp. 205–30. (1995) Fray Bernardo de Lugo: two sonnets in Muisca. In: Troiani (1995), pp. 129–42. (1999) Las oraciones y el catecismo breve en muisca del MS 2922: Historia, texto, terminolog´ıa. In: Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz and Crickmay (1999), pp. 41–59. (2000) The development of transitivity in the Chibchan languages of Colombia. In: John Charles Smith and Delia Bentley (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1995,vol. 1: General Issues and Non-, pp. 279–93. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ostler, Nicholas and Mar´ıa Stella Gonz´alez de P´erez (forthcoming) Chibcha in its Linguistic Context: Grammar, Dictionary, Texts and Reconstruction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pab´on Triana, Marta (1995a) La Lengua de Totor´o: historia de una causa. In: Pab´on Triana (1995b), pp. 91–110. Bogot´a. ed. (1995b) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de Colombia (VII Congreso de Antropolog´ıa; Simposio ‘La recuperaci´on de lenguas nativas como b´usqueda de identidadetnica’; ´ Medell´ın, June 1994), Memorias 3. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. Pach´on, Ximena, (1987) P´aez. In: Correa and Pach´on (1987), pp. 217–34. P´aez, Justiniano (1936) Investigaciones sobre la lengua de los indios motilones. Hacaritama 2, pp. 337–43. Oca˜na, Colombia. Palavecino, Enrique (1926) Elementos ling¨u´ısticos de Ocean´ıa en el quechua. In: Jos´e Imbelloni (ed.), La esfinge indiana. Antiguos y nuevos aspectos de los or´ıgenes americanos, pp. 335–49. Buenos Aires: El Ateneo. Paniagua Loza, F´elix (1986) Qala chuyma. Canciones tradicionales aymaras. Q’axilunaka – Cajelos. Puno: Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue. Pantoja Alc´antara, Isabel del Roc´ıo (MS 2000) Presencia del culli en el castellano regional de Santiago de Chuco – La Libertad. MA thesis Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima. Pantoja Ramos, Santiago, Jos´e Ripkens and Germ´an Swisshelm (1974) Cuentos y relatos en el quechua de Huaraz,2vols. Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 3. Huaraz. Parada, Enrique, Humberto Valdivieso and Miguel A. Alarc´on (1976) El l´exico de las minas del carb´on. Concepci´on, Chile: Universidad de Concepci´on. Pardo Rojas, Mauricio and Daniel Aguirre Licht (1993) Dialectolog´ıa choc´o. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 269–312. Park, Marinell, Nancy Weber and V´ıctor Cenepo Sangama (1976) Diccionario quechua San Mart´ın. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Parker, Gary John (1963) La clasificaci´on gen´etica de los dialectos quechuas. Revista del Museo Nacional 32, pp. 241–52. Lima. (1965) Gram´atica del quechua ayacuchano. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. (1969a) Ayacucho Quechua Grammar and Dictionary. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. References 663

(1969–71) Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar. I: Classification, Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 1, pp. 65–87; II (1969b): Proto-Quechua phonology and morphology, WPIL 1, 2, pp. 123–47; III (1969c): Proto-Quechua lexicon, WPIL 1, 4, pp. 1–61; IV (1969d): The evolution of Quechua A, WPIL 1, 9, pp. 149–204; Corrigenda et Addenda to Chapters I–IV, WPIL 2, 2, pp. 111–16; V (1971): The evolution of Quechua B, WPIL 3, 3, pp. 45–109. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Department of Linguistics. (1976) Gram´atica quechua Ancash–Huailas. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Parker, Gary John and Amancio Ch´avez (1976) Diccionario quechua Ancash–Huailas. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Parker, Stephen G. (1987) Vocabularios y textos chamicuro.Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1995) Datos de la lengua i˜napari. Documento de Trabajo 27. Lima, Yarinacocha: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Parker, Stephen G. with Gregorio Orbe Caro and Alfonso Patow Chota (1987) Kana acha’taka ijnachale kana chamekolo. Vocabulario y textos chamicuro. Documento de Trabajo 21. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Parker, Stephen G. with Arqu´ımedes Sinuiri Nunta and Antonio Ram´ırez Cairuna (1992) Datos del idioma huariapano. Documento de Trabajo 24. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Pati˜no Rosselli, Carlos (2000) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de la Amazonia meridional de Colombia. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 169–70. Patte, Marie-France (1978) Etude phonologique de la langue a˜nun (paraujano) parl´ee dans la r´egion de Sinamaica (V´en´ezu´ela). Amerindia 3, pp. 57–83. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1981) Les pr´efixes personnels en a˜n´un. Amerindia 6, pp. 7–16. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1986) De los A˜nun. Chantiers Amerindia: Suppl´ement 2 au no 11 d’Amerindia. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1989) Estudio descriptivo de la lengua A˜nun (o ‘Paraujano’). San Crist´obal: Universidad Cat´olica del T´achira. Payaguaje, Alfredo and Celestino Payaguaje (1988) Nama,˜ yaio’i cui’ne cutihue cou. El venado, los tigres y la tortuga. Cultura siona – secoya. Cuadernos de lectura 1. Quito: Organizaci´on de Ind´ıgenas Secoya-Siona del Ecuador, Centro de Investigaciones Culturales de la Amazona Ecnatoriana and Confederaci´on de Nacionalidades Ind´ıgenas de Ecuador. Payne, David L. (1981) Bosquejo fonol´ogico del proto-shuar-candoshi. Revista del Museo Nacional 45, pp. 323–77. Lima. (1985) The genetic classification of Res´ıgaro. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 2, pp. 222–31. (1990) Some widespread grammatical forms in South American languages. In: Doris L. Payne (1990a), pp. 75–87. (1991a) A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1991), pp. 353–499. (1991b) Apolista (Lapachu) as a Maipuran language. Paper presented at the 47th International Congress of Americanists, New Orleans. (1991c) Clasificadores nominales: la interacci´on de la fonolog´ıa, la gram´atica, y el l´exico en la investigaci´on comparativa del maipuran. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnoling¨u´ısticos 6, pp. 241–57. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor. (1993) Una visi´on panor´amica de la familia ling¨u´ıstica arawak. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 127–64. 664 References

Payne, Doris L. (1984) Evidence for a Yaguan-Zaparoan connection. In: Desmond Derbyshire (ed.), SIL Work Papers, University of North Dakota Session 28, pp. 131–56. (1985) -ta in Zaparoan and Peban-Yaguan. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 4, 529–31. (1986) Basic constituent order in Yagua clauses. Implications for word order universals. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1986), pp. 440–65. ed. (1990a) Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin: University of Texas Press. (1990b) Morphological characteristics of lowland South American Languages. In: Doris L. Payne (1990a), pp. 213–42. Payne, Doris L. and Thomas E. Payne (1990) Yagua. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1990), pp. 249–474. Payne, Johnny (1984) Cuentos cusque˜nos. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. PazyMi˜no, Luis T. (1936–7) Contribuci´on al estudio de las lenguas ind´ıgenas del Ecuador. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia 14 (1936), pp. 40–54; 15 (1937), pp. 9–41. Quito. (1940–2) Lenguas ind´ıgenas del Ecuador. I (1940) La lengua pasto, Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia, 20, 56, pp. 161–78; II (1941a) La lengua kara, BANH, 21, 57, pp. 28–52; III (1941b) La kito o panzaleo, BANH, 21, 58, pp. 145–70; IV (1942) La lengua puruguay, BANH 22, 59, pp. 42–74. Quito. (1961a) Las agrupaciones y lenguas ind´ıgenas del Ecuador, en 1500 y 1959. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia 43, 97, pp. 5–16. Quito. (1961b) Lenguas ind´ıgenas del Ecuador: la lengua ka˜nar. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia 43, pp. 193–229. Quito. Peeke, M. Catherine (1962) Structural summary of Z´aparo. In: Elson (1962), pp. 125–216. (1973) Preliminary Grammar of Auca. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 39. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. (1979) El idioma huao: gram´atica pedag´ogica,vol. 1. Cuadernos Etnoling¨u´ısticos 3. Quito: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Pellizzaro, Siro M. (1969) Apuntes de gram´atica shuar. Quito: Federaci´on Provincial de Centros Shuar de Morona-Santiago. Perea y Alonso, Sixto (1937) Apuntes para la prehistoria ind´ıgena del R´ıo de la Plata y especialmente de la banda oriental de Uruguay, como introducci´on a la filolog´ıa comparada de las lenguas y dialectos Arawak. Bolet´ın de Filolog´ıa 1, pp. 217–45. Montevideo: Universidad de Montevideo. P´erez de Barradas, Jos´e (1955) Les Indiens de l’Eldorado. Etude historique et ethnographique des de Colombie.Paris: Payot (originally published in Spanish in Madrid, 1951). P´erez van Leenden, Francisco (2000) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de la pen´ınsula de la Guajira. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 793–4. Perl, Matthias and Armin Schwegler, eds. (1998) Am´erica Negra: panor´amica actual de los estudios ling¨uisticos sobre variedades hispanas, portuguesas y criollas.Frankfurt am Main: Ver vuert. Petersen de Pi˜neros, Gabriele (1994) La lengua uitota en la obra de K. Th. Preuss.Bogot´a: Editorial Universidad Nacional. Petersen de Pi˜neros, Gabriele and Carlos Pati˜no Rosselli (2000) El idioma uitoto. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 219–38. Phelan, John Leddy (1967) The Kingdom of Quito in the Seventeenth Century. Madison, Milwaukee and London: University of Wisconsin Press. Philippi, Rodulfus Amandus (1860) Reise durch die W¨uste Atacama auf Befehl der chilenischen Regierung im Sommer 1853–1854. Halle: Eduard Anton. References 665

Pigafetta, Antonio (1956) Relation du premier voyage autour du monde par Magellan [1519–1522]. Commentary and transcription by L´eonce Peillard. Paris: Club des Librairies de France. Pike, Evelyn G. and Rachel Saint, eds. (1988) Workpapers concerning Waorani Discourse Features. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Pineda Giraldo, Roberto and Miguel Fornaguera (1958) Vocabulario opon-carare. In: Academia Colombiana de Historia, ed. Homenaje al Profesor Paul Rivet.Bogot´a: Editorial ABC. Piossek Prebisch, Teresa (1976) La rebeli´on de Pedro Boh´orquez. El Inca del Tucum´an (1656–1659). Buenos Aires: Ju´arez. Pitkin, Harvey (1984) Wintu Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. (1985) Wintu Dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pizarro, Pedro (1986 [1571]) Relaci´on del descubrimiento y conquista de los reinos del Per´u (2nd edition). Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Plaza Mart´ınez, Pedro and Juan Carvajal Carvajal (1985) Etnias y lenguas de Bolivia.LaPaz: Instituto Boliviano de Cultura. Poblete Mendoza, Mar´ıa Teresa and Adalberto Salas (1997) El aymara de Chile (fonolog´ıa, textos, l´exico). Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 23, 1, pp. 121–203. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Poblete Mendoza, Mar´ıa Teresa and Adalberto Salas (1999) Fonemas yamana (yagan). Estructura fonol´ogica de la palabra. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 37, pp. 107–22. Concepci´on (Chile). Polo, Jos´eToribio (1901) Indios uros del Per´uyBolivia. Bolet´ın de la Sociedad Geogr´afica de Lima 10, pp. 445–82. Lima. Porterie-Guti´errez, Liliane (1988) Etude linguistique de l’aymara septentrional (P´erou-Bolivie). Th`ese Amerindia. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1990) Documentos para el estudio de la lengua chipaya. Amerindia 15, pp. 157–91. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. Posnansky, Arturo (1915) La lengua chipaya. Memorias presentadas al XIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas.LaPaz: Instituto Tiahuanacu de Antropolog´ıa, Etnograf´ıa y Prehistoria. (1918) Los chipayas de Carangas (2nd edition). La Paz: Escuela tipogr´afica salesiana. (1934) Los urus o uchumi. Actas del XXV Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (La Plata, 1932), vol. 1, pp. 235–300. La Plata, Argentina. Pottier, Bernard, ed. (1983) Am´erica Latina en sus lenguas indigenas. Caracas: Unesco and Monte Avila. Pozzi-Escot, In´es (1998) El multilingu¨ısmo en el Per´u. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas; Cochabamba: Programa de Formaci´on en Educaci´on Intercultural Biling¨ue para los Pa´ıses Andinos (PROEIB Andes). Preuss, Konrad Theodor (1921–5) Forschungsreise zu den K´agaba-Indianern der Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Anthropos 16–17 (1–3), pp. 459–80, (4–6), pp. 737–64; 18–19 (1–3), pp. 125–54, (4–6), pp. 890–950; 20 (1–2), pp. 77–119, (3–4), pp. 461–95. St Gabriel, M¨odling near Vienna: Anthropos Verlag. (1921–3) Religion und Mythologie der Uitoto. Textaufnahmen und Beobachtungen bei einem Indianenstamm in Kolumbien, S¨udamerika.G¨ottingen and Leipzig: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Proulx, Paul (1969) Proto-Quechua person suffixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 35, 1, pp. 25–7. Puente Baldoceda, Blas (1978) Influencia morfo-sint´actica del quechua sobre el castellano andino del Per´u. Paper presented at a Workshop on Andean Linguistics organised by the Linguistic Society of America (University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, August 1978). 666 References

Pyle, Ransford Comstock (1981) Aymara kinship, real and spiritual. In: Hardman (1981), pp. 80–9. Queixal´os, Francisco (1985) Fonolog´ıa sikuani.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1989) Diccionario Sikuani–Espa˜nol.Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1993) Lenguas y dialectos de la familia ling¨u´ıstica guahibo. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 189–217. (1998) Nom, verbe et pr´edicat en sikuani (Colombie).Paris: Soci´et´e d’Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France and Peeters. (2000) Syntaxe sikuani (Colombie).Paris: Soci´et´e d’Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France and Peeters. Queixal´os, Fran¸cois and Odile Renault-Lescure, eds. (2000) As l´ınguas amazˆonicas hoje.S˜ao Paulo: Institut de recherche pour le d´eveloppement, Instituto Socioambiental and Museu Paraense Em´ılio Goeldi. Quesada Castillo, F´elix (1976a) Gram´atica quechua Cajamarca–Ca˜naris. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976b) Diccionario quechua Cajamarca–Ca˜naris. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Quesada Pacheco, Miguel Angel (1991) El vocabulario mosco de 1612. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 10, pp. 29–99. San Jos´e: Universidad de Costa Rica. Quijano Otero, Jos´e Mar´ıa, ed. (1881) Grammatica, frases, oraciones, cathezismo, confessionario y bocabulario de la lengua chibcha [1620]. In: Actas del Congreso Internacional de Americanistas IV (Madrid 1881), vol. 2, pp. 226–95. Madrid: Imprenta de Fortanet (republished in 1968 by Kraus Reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein). Rabinowitz, Joel (1983) La lengua pescadora: the lost dialect of Chimu fishermen. In: Daniel H. Sandweiss (ed.), Cornell University Investigations of the Andean Past, Papers from the First Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, pp. 243–67. Ithaca: Cornell University. Raimondi, Antonio (1873) El departamento de Ancachs y sus riquezas minerales. Lima: P. Lira. Ram´ırez, Henri (1997) AFala Tukano dos Yepˆa-Masa,vol. I: Gram´atica;vol. II: Dicion´ario. : Inspetoria Salesiana Mission´aria da Amazˆonia and Centro ‘Iavaret´e’ de Documentac˜ao Etnogr´afica e Mission´aria (CEDEM). Ramos Cabredo, Josefina (1950) Las lenguas en la regi´on tallanca. Cuadernos de Estudio del Instituto de Investigaciones Hist´oricas 3, 8, pp. 11–55. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Ramos Pizarro, Nelly (1989) Biling¨uismo castellano mapudungun en poblaci´on escolar media de la IX regi´on (Chile). Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 12, pp. 29–42. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). Ravines, Rogger and Avalos de Matos, Rosal´ıa (1988) Atlas etnoling¨u´ıstico del Per´u. Lima: Instituto Andino de Artes Populares del Convenio Andr´es Bello, Comisi´on Nacional del Per´u. Raymond, J. Scott (1988) A view from the tropical forest. In: Keatinge (1998), pp. 279–300. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo (1947) La lengua chimila. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 36, pp. 15–50. (1950–1) Los kogi: una tribu de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta,2vols. Bogot´a: Editorial Iqueima (new edition 1985, Bogot´a: Procultura). (1965) Excavaciones arqueol´ogicas en Puerto Hormiga (Departamento de Bol´ıvar).Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes. (1972) San Agust´ın.New York and Washington: Praeger. References 667

(1989) Materiales ling¨u´ısticos de 1.947. ‘Contribuciones al conocimiento del idioma sank´a’. In: Trillos Amaya et al. (1989), pp. 143–80. Remy, Pilar and Mar´ıa Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, eds. (1992) Las visitas a Cajamarca 1571–2/1578,2vols. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Reuse, Willem J. de (1986) The lexicalization of sound symbolism in Santiago del Estero Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics 52, 1, pp. 54–64. Ricardo, Antonio, ed. (1985 [1584]) Doctrina Christiana y catecismo para instrucci´on de los indios. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas. ed. (1586) Arte, y vocabulario en la lengua general del Peru llamada quichua, y en la lengua espa˜nola. Lima (revised edition see Aguilar P´aez 1970). Rick, John W. (1988) The character and context of highland preceramic society. In: Keatinge (1988), pp. 3–40. Riester, J¨urgen (1976) En busca de la Loma Santa.LaPaz, Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. (1986a) Introducci´on. In: Riester (1986b), pp. 17–84. ed. (1986b) Z´ubaka. La Chiquitan´ıa: visi´on antropol´ogica de una regi´on en desarrollo,vol. 1: Vocabulario del chiquito Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Rivano, Emilio (1988) Morphosyntactic functions in Mapudungu. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 26, pp. 57–90. Concepci´on, Chile. (1989) Persons, interactions, proximity, and metaphorical grammaticalization in Mapudungu. Working Papers 35, pp. 149–68. Lund University, Department of Linguistics. (1990) Notes on the feature matrix for Mapudungu vowels and related issues. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 28, pp. 135–45. Concepci´on, Chile. Rivarola, Jos´e Luis (1985a) Lengua, comunicaci´on e historia del Per´u. Lima: Lumen (also published in Bolet´ın de la Academia Peruana de la Lengua 19 (1984), pp. 125–60, Lima). (1985b) Un testimonio del espa˜nol andino en el Per´u del siglo 17. Anuario de Ling¨u´ıstica Hisp´anica 1, pp. 203–11. Valladolid. (1986) El espa˜nol del Per´u. Balance y perspectiva de la investigaci´on. Lexis 10, pp. 25–52. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1987) Parod´ıas de la ‘lengua del indio’ en el Per´u (SS XVII–XIX). Lexis 11, pp. 137–64. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1990) La formaci´on ling¨u´ıstica de Hispanoam´erica. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Rivera, Mario A. (1999) Prehistory of the . In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1, pp. 734–68. Rivet, Paul (1924a) Langues am´ericaines, II: Langues de l’Am´erique du Sud et des Antilles. In: Meillet and Cohen (1924), pp. 639–712. (1924b) La langue andak´ı. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 16, pp. 99–110. (1925) Les Australiens en Am´erique. Bulletin de la Soci´et´e Linguistique de Paris 26, pp. 23–63. Paris. (1927) La famille linguistique timote. International Journal of American Linguistics 4, 2–4, pp. 137–67. (1934) Population de la province de Ja´en. Equateur. In: Congr`es international des sciences anthropologiques et ethnologiques: compte-rendu de la premi`ere session, pp. 245–7. London: Royal Institute of Anthropology. (1942) Un dialecte hoka colombien: le yurumang´ı. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 34, pp. 1–59. (1943a) La influencia karib en Colombia. Revista del Instituto Etnol´ogico Nacional 1, pp. 55–93, 283–95. Bogot´a. (1943b) La lengua chok´o. Revista del Instituto Etnol´ogico Nacional 1, pp. 131–96. Bogot´a. 668 References

(1943–6) Nouvelle contributional’´ ` etude de l’ethnologie pr´ecolombienne de Colombie. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 35, pp. 25–39. (1947) Les indiens malib´u. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 36, pp. 139–44. (1949) Les langues de l’ancien dioc`ese de Trujillo. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 38, pp. 1–51. (1956) Les affixes classificatoires des noms de nombre. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 45, pp. 179–88. Rivet, Paul and Ces´areo de Armellada (1950) Les indiens motilones. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 39, pp. 15–57. Rivet, Paul and Georges de Cr´equi-Montfort (1951–6) Bibliographie des langues aymar´aet kiˇcua,4vols. Paris: Universit´edeParis, Institut d’Ethnologie. Rivet, Paul and Cestm´ˇ ır Loukotka (1952) Langues de l’Am´erique du Sud et des Antilles. In: Meillet and Cohen (revised edition 1952), pp. 1099–160. Rivet, Paul and Cl´ement Tastevin (1931) Nouvelle contributional’´ ` etude du groupe kahuapana. International Journal of American Linguistics 6, 3–4, pp. 227–71. Robayo Moreno, Camilo Alberto (2000) Introducci´on al estudio de la lengua yuko o yukpa. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 709–17. Rochereau, Henri (1926–7) La lengua tuneba y sus dialectos, fasc. I: Ensayo gramatical. (1926); fasc. II: Vocabulario (1927). Pamplona: Imprenta de la Di´ocesis de Pamplona. Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna (1984–5) Rela¸c˜oes internas na fam´ılia ling¨u´ıstica tupi-guaran´ı. Revista de Antropologia 27/28, pp. 33–53. S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo, Departamento de Ciˆencias Sociais. (1985a) Evidence for Tupi–Carib relationships. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 371–404. (1985b) The present state of the study of Brazilian Indian languages. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 405–39. (1986) L´ınguas brasileiras.S˜ao Paulo: Edi¸c˜oes Loyola. (1999) Macro-Jˆe. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), pp. 164–206. (2000) ‘Ge-Pano-Carib’ x ‘Jˆe-Tup´ı-Karib’; sobre relaciones ling¨u´ısticas prehist´oricas en Sudam´erica. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 1, pp. 95–104. Rodr´ıguez, Gustavo (1991) The Tal´atur. Ceremonial chant of the Atacama people. In: Key (1991), pp. 181–92. Rodr´ıguez Baquero, Luis Enrique (1995) Encomienda y vida diaria entre los indios de Muzo (1550–1620).Bogot´a: Instituto Colombiano de Cultura Hisp´anica. Rodr´ıguez Garrido, Jos´eA.(1982) Sobre el uso del posesivo redundante en el espa˜nol del Peru. Lexis 6, pp. 117–23. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. Rodr´ıguez Gonz´alez, Sandra Patricia (2000). Estudios sobre la lengua koreguaje. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 199–213. Rodr´ıguez de Montes, Mar´ıa Luisa, ed. (1993) Estado actual de la clasificaci´on de las lenguas ind´ıgenas de Colombia.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Rojas Curieux, Tulio (1991a) Las estructuras de la oraci´on en p´aez. In: Rojas Curieux (1991c), pp. 7–100. (1991b) Fonolog´ıa: variante Munchique. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 43–96. ed. (1991c) Estudios gramaticales de la lengua p´aez (nasa yuwe).Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1998) La lengua p´aez: una visi´on de su gram´atica. Santaf´edeBogot´a: Ministerio de Cultura. Rojas de Perdomo, Lucia (1979) Manual de arqueolog´ıa colombiana.Bogot´a: Carlos Valencia Editores. Romero, Fernando (1988) Quimba, Fa, Malambo, Neque.˜ Afronegrismos en el Per´u. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. References 669

Romoli, Kathleen (1987) Los de la lengua de Cueva. Los grupos ind´ıgenas del istmo oriental en laepoca ´ de la conquista espa˜nola.Bogot´a: Instituto Colombiano de Antropolog´ıa, Instituto Colombiano de Cultura (Ediciones Tercer Mundo). Rona, Jos´ePedro (1964) Nuevos elementos acerca de la lengua charr´ua. Montevideo: Universidad de la Rep´ublica, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Departamento de Ling¨u´ıstica. R¨osing, Ina (1990) Introducci´on al mundo callawaya: curaci´on ritual para vencer penas y tristezas,vol. I: Introducci´on y documentaci´on. Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Rouby, Angel and Otto Riedmayer, with Luis Mar´ıa Caillet (1983) Shuar chicham. Gram´atica shuar. Vocabulario Castellano – Shuar. Ecuador: Mundo Shuar. Rowe, John Howland (1947) The distribution of Indians and Indian languages in Peru. The Geographical Review 37, pp. 202–15. New York. (1948) The kingdom of Chimor. Acta Americana 6, 1–2, pp. 26–59. (1950a) The Idabaez: Unknown Indians of the Choc´o coast. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers no. 1, pp. 34–44. Berkeley. (1950b) Sound patterns in three Inca dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 16, 3, pp. 137–48. (1974) Sixteenth and seventeenth century grammars. In: Dell Hymes (ed.), Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and Paradigms, pp. 361–79. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. S´aez Godoy, Leopoldo, ed. (1971) Johann Jakob von Tschudi: la lengua cunza. Signos 5, 1, pp. 15–20. Valpara´ıso: Universidad Cat´olica de Valpara´ıso, Instituto de Lenguas y Literatura. S´aez Godoy, Leopoldo, et al. (MS 1974) Diccionario Espa˜nol–Kunsa Kunsa–Espa˜nol. Seminario de titulaci´on ‘la lengua kunsa’. Valpara´ıso: Universidad Cat´olica de Valpara´ıso. Saint, Rachel and Kenneth L. Pike (1962) Auca phonemics. In: Elson (1962), pp. 2–30. Sakel, Jeanette (2002) Gender agreement in Moset´en. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 287–305. (2003) A Grammar of Moset´en. PhD diss. University of Nijmegen. Salas, Adalberto (1978) Terminaciones y transiciones en el verbo mapuche. Cr´ıtica y bases para una nueva interpretaci´on. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 16, pp. 167–79. Concepci´on, Chile. (1979) Semantic Ramifications of the Category of Person in the Mapuche Verb. PhD diss. State University of New York, Buffalo. (1984) Textos orales en mapuche o araucano del centro-sur de Chile. Concepci´on: Editorial de la Universidad de Concepci´on. (1992a) El mapuche o araucano. Fonolog´ıa, gram´atica y antolog´ıa de cuentos. Madrid: Editorial MAPFRE. (1992b) Ling¨u´ıstica mapuche. Revista Andina 10, 2, pp. 473–537. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´ede Las Casas. Salas, Adalberto and Mar´ıa Teresa Poblete Mendoza (1997) El aymara de Chile (II L´exico). Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 23, 2, pp. 95–138. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Salas, Jos´e Antonio (2002) Diccionario Mochica–Castellano Castellano-Mochica. Lima: Universidad de San Mart´ın de Porres, Escuela Profesional de Turismo y Hoteler´ıa. Salas, Julio C. (1924) Or´ıgenes americanos: lenguas indias comparadas,vol. 1. Caracas: Editorial Sur-America. Salomon, Frank (1986) Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas: the Political Economy of North Andean Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, Frank and Sue Grosboll (1986) Names and peoples in Incaic Quito: retrieving undocumented historic processes through anthroponymy and statistics. American Anthropologist 88, pp. 387–99. 670 References

Salomon, Frank and Stuart B. Schwartz, eds. (1999) The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of South America,vol. 3: South America,2parts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, Frank and George L. Urioste (1991) The Huarochir´ı Manuscript. A Testament of Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion. Austin: University of Texas Press. San Pedro, Juan de and Juan del Canto (1918) Relaci´on de la religi´on y ritos del Per´u, hecha por los primeros religiosos Agustinos que all´ı passaron para la conversi´on de los naturales. In: Horacio H. Urteaga and Carlos H. Romero (eds.), Informaciones acerca de la Religi´on y Gobierno de los Incas. Colecci´on de Libros y Documentos referentes a la historia del Per´u, vol. 11, pp. 3–58. Lima (for the 1992 edition see Castro de Trelles). San Rom´an, Francisco J. (1967) La lengua cunza de los naturales de Atacama. Revista de Cultura Universitaria Ancora 3, pp. 76–88. Antofagasta (first published in 1890 in Revista de la Direcci´on de Obras P´ublicas: Secci´on de Geograf´ıa 5, Santiago: Imprenta Gutenberg). Santa Gertrudis, Juan de (1970) Maravillas de la naturaleza,4vols. Bogot´a: Editorial Kelly. Santo Tom´as, Domingo de (1560a) Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los indios de los reynos del Peru.Valladolid: Francisco Fern´andez de C´ordova (also published in 1951 by Ra´ul Porras Barrenechea, Lima; and in 1994, with an introductory study, by Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino, Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hisp´anica and Unesco). (1560b) Lexicon o vocabulario de la lengua general del Peru.Valladolid: Francisco Fern´andez de C´ordova (also published in 1994 by Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino, Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hisp´anica and Unesco). Schleicher, Charles Owen (1998) Comparative and Internal Reconstruction of the Tupi-Guaran´ı Language Family. PhD diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Schuchard, Barbara (1986) Apuntes sobre la gram´atica. In: Riester (1986b), pp. 85–101. Schumacher de Pe˜na, Gertrud (1991) El vocabulario mochica de Walter Lehmann (1929) comparado con otras fuentes l´exicas. Lima: Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada (CILA), Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Schuller, Rudolph R. (1908) Vocabulario y nuevos materiales para el estudio de la lengua de los indios Lican-antai (Atacame˜nos) – Calchaqu´ı. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes. Seelwische, Jos´e (1980) Nivacle Ihcliish – Sˆomto Ihcliish. Diccionario Nivacle – Castellano. Filadelfia, Paraguay: Asociaci´on de Servicios de Cooperaci´on Ind´ıgena-Menonita (ASCIM). Seifart, Frank (2002) El sistema de clasificaci´on nominal del mira˜na.Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes (CCELA). Seler, Eduard (1902) Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur altamerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde,vol. 1. Berlin: A. Asher & Co. Serrano, Antonio (1936) Contribuciones al estudio de lenguas ind´ıgenas en la Argentina: observaciones sobre el kak´an, el extinguido idioma de los diaguitas. Bolet´ın de la Academia Argentina de Letras,4,14, pp. 261–72. (1947) Los abor´ıgenes argentinos. Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova. Shady Sol´ıs, Ruth (1988) Laepoca ´ Huari como interacci´on de las sociedades regionales. Revista Andina 6, 1, pp. 67–134. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1997) El centro urbano primigenio de Caral, Supe, costa nor-central del Per´u. Bolet´ın del Instituto de Investigaciones Ling¨u´ısticas (INVEL) 3. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas. Shafer, Robert (1959) Algumas equa¸c˜oes fon´eticas em Arawakan. Anthropos 54, pp. 542–62. (1962) Aruacan (not Arawakan). Anthropological Linguistics 4, 4, pp. 31–40. Shell, Olive (1965) Pano Reconstruction. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. (1975) Estudios Panos III: Las lenguas panos en su reconstrucci´on. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 12. Lima, Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. References 671

Shell, Olive A. and Mary Ruth Wise (1971) Grupos idiom´aticos del Per´u (2nd edition). Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos and Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Sherzer, Joel F. (1974) Namakke, sunmakke, kormakke: three types of Cuna speech event. In: Richard Baumann and Joel Sherzer, Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, pp. 263–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1975) A problem in Cuna phonology. Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest 1, 2, pp. 45–53. (1978) Cuna numeral classifiers. In: Mohammad Ali Jazayeri, Edgar C. Polom´e and Werner Winter (eds.), Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, vol. 2: Descriptive Linguistics, pp. 331–7. The Hague, Paris and New York: Mouton. (1983) Kuna Ways of Speaking: an Ethnographic Perspective. Austin: University of Texas Press. (1986) The report of a Kuna curing specialist: the poetics and rhetoric of an oral performance. In: Sherzer and Urban (1986), pp. 169–212. Sherzer, Joel F. and Greg Urban, eds. (1986) Native South American Discourse. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Silva Santisteban, Fernando (1982) La lengua culle de Cajamarca y Huamachuco. Cantuta 9, pp. 138–48. Lima: Universidad Nacional de Educaci´on (reprinted 1986 in: Fernando Silva Santisteban, Waldemar Espinoza Soriano and Rogger Ravines (eds.), Historia de Cajamarca II: etnohistoria y ling¨u´ıstica, pp. 365–70, Cajamarca: Instituto Nacional de Cultura). Silver, Shirley and Wick R. Miller (1997) American Indian Languages. Cultural and Social Contexts.Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Sim´on, Pedro (1882–92 [1626]) Noticias historiales de las conquistas de Tierra Firme en las Indias Occidentales,several volumes. Bogot´a: Imprenta de Medardo Rivas (1982 edition, Bogot´a: Biblioteca Banco Popular). Simson, Alfred (1886) Travels in the Wilds of Ecuador and the Exploration of the Putumayo River. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington. Skottsberg, Carl (1913) Observations on the natives of the Patagonian Channel region. American Anthropologist 15, pp. 578–616. Smeets, Ineke (1989) A Mapuche Grammar. PhD diss. Leiden University. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1907) Nimpasmo nimpaiwa nelmathnangkama: Portions of the Book of Common Prayer in the Lengua Language as Spoken by a Tribe of Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco. London. Society for Promoting Christian knowledge (1911) Nimpaiwa ningminaigm`asch`ama: Original Hymns and Paraphrases of Well-known Hymns in the Lengua Language as Spoken by a Tribe of Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco. London. Sol´a, Donald F. (1967) Gram´atica del quechua de Hu´anuco. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. Sol´ıs Fonseca, Gustavo and Jorge Esquivel Villafana (1979) El fonema postvelar quechua y sus efectos coarticulatorios. Documento de Trabajo 40. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. Sorensen, Arthur P. (1967) Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. American Anthropologist 69, pp. 670–84. (1985) An emerging Tukanoan linguistic regionality. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 140–56. Soto Ruiz, Clodoaldo (1976a) Gram´atica quechua Ayacucho–Chanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976b) Diccionario quechua Ayacucho–Chanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1979) Quechua. Manual de ense˜nanza. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. 672 References

Squier, Ephraim George (1877) Peru Illustrated or Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the Land of the Incas.New York: Hurst & Company. Stahl, Wilmar (1982) Escenario ind´ıgena chaque˜no. pasado y presente.Filadelfia, Paraguay: Asociaci´on de Servicios de Cooperaci´on Ind´ıgena-Menonita (ASCIM). Stark, Louisa R. (1968) Mayan Affinities with Yunga of Peru. PhD diss. New York University. (1970) Mayan affinities with Araucanian. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 16–18 April 1970, pp. 57–69. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. (1972a) Maya–Yunga–Chipaya: a new linguistic alignment. International Journal of American Linguistics 38, 2, pp. 119–35. (1972b) Machaj–Juyay: secret language of the Callahuayas. Papers in Andean Linguistics 1, 2, pp. 199–218. (1985a) Ecuadorian highland Quechua: history and current status. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 443–80. (1985b) The Quechua language in Bolivia. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 516–45. (1985c) Indigenous languages of lowland Ecuador. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 371–404. Stark, Louisa R. and Pieter C. Muysken (1977) Diccionario Espa˜nol–Quichua Quichua–Espa˜nol. Quito and Guayaquil: Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador, Archivo Hist´orico del Guayas. Stevenson, William Bennett (1825) A Historical and Descriptive Narrative of 20 Years Residence in South America,2vols. London: Hurst, Robinson and Co. Steward, Julian Haynes, ed. (1946–50) Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 1 (1946a): The Marginal Tribes;vol. 2 (1946b): The ;vol. 3 (1948): The Tropical Forest Tribes;vol. 6 (1950): Physical Anthropology, Linguistics and Cultural Geography of South American Indians. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office. Steward, Julian Haynes and Louis C. Faron (1959) Native Peoples of South America.New York, Toronto and London: McGraw-Hill. Stratford, Billie Dale (1989) Structure and Use of Altiplano Spanish. PhD diss. University of Florida, Gainesville. Strom, Clay (1992) Retuar˜a Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Su´arez, Jorge A. (1959) The phonemes of an Araucanian dialect. International Journal of American Linguistics 25, 3, pp. 177–81. (1969) Moset´en and Pano–Tacanan. Anthropological Linguistics 11, 9, pp. 255–66. (1973) Macro–Pano–Tacanan. International Journal of American Linguistics 37, 3, pp. 137–54. (1974) Classification of South American Indian languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th edition). Macropaedia 17, pp. 105–12. Chicago. Su´arez Roca, Jos´e Luis (1992) Ling¨u´ıstica misionera espa˜nola. Oviedo: Pentalfa. Suˇsnik, Branislava J. (1958) Een¸cl¨ıtappaiwa. ´ Lengua–Maskoy. Estructura gramatical. Parte 1ra Bolet´ın de la Sociedad Cient´ıfica del Paraguay y del Museo Andr´es Barbero etnogr´afico e hist´orico natural, vol. 2, Etnoling¨u´ıstica 2. Asunci´on (Paraguay). (1977) Lengua–maskoy. Su hablar, su pensar, su vivencia. Lenguas chaque˜nas IV. Asunci´on: Museo Etnogr´afico ‘Andr´es Barbero’. (1978) Los abor´ıgenes del Paraguay, vol. 1: Etnolog´ıa del Chaco Boreal y su periferia (Siglos XVI y XVII). Asunci´on: Museo Etnogr´afico ‘Andr´es Barbero’. (1986–7) Los abor´ıgenes del Paraguay, vol. 7,1: Lenguas chaque˜nas. Asunci´on: Museo Etnogr´afico ‘Andr´es Barbero’. Swadesh, Morris (1954) Perspectives and problems of Amerindian comparative linguistics. Word 10, pp. 306–32. References 673

(1959) Mapas de clasificaci´on ling¨u´ıstica de M´exico y las Am´ericas. Cuadernos del Instituto de Historia, Serie Antropol´ogica 8. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Aut´onoma de M´exico. (1962) Afinidades de las lenguas amerindias. In: Akten des 34. Amerikanistenkongresses (Vienna, 18–25 July 1960), pp. 729–38. Vienna: Fred Berger. (1967) Lexicostatistic classification. In: Robert Wauchope and Norman A. McQuown (eds.), Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 5: Linguistics, pp. 79–115. Austin: University of Texas Press. (1971) The Origin and Diversification of Language.New York: Aldine-Atherton. Sweet, David G. (1974) A Rich Realm of Nature Destroyed: the Central Amazon Valley, 1640–1750. PhD diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Swisshelm, Germ´an (1971) Un an´alisis detallado de la fonolog´ıa del quechua de Huaraz. Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 1. Huaraz. (1972) Un diccionario del quechua de Huaraz (Quechua–Castellano Castellano–Quechua). Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 2. Huaraz. (1974) Los sufijos de derivaci´on verbal en el quechua de Huaraz. In: Pantoja Ramos et al. (1974), vol. 2, pp. 471–577. Szemi´nski, Jan (1990) Un texto en el idioma olvidado de los Inkas. Hist´orica 14, 2, pp. 379–89. Jerusalem. (1998) Del idioma propio de los incas cuzque˜nos y de su pertenencia ling¨u´ıstica. Hist´orica 22, 1, pp. 135–68. Jerusalem. Tate, Norman (1981) An ethnosemantic study of Aymara: ‘to carry’. In: Hardman (1981), pp. 57–70. Taussig, Michael T. (1987) Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: a Study in Terror and Healing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Taylor, Anne Christine (1999) The western margins of Amazonia from the early sixteenth to the early nineteenth century. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 2, pp. 188–256. Taylor, Douglas (1978) Four consonantal patterns in northern Arawakan. International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 2, pp. 121–30. Taylor, G´erald (1975) Le parler quechua d’Olto, Amazonas (P´erou). Phonologie, esquisse grammaticale, textes.Paris: Soci´et´edEtudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. (1979a) Morphologie compar´ee du verbe quechua: l’expression de l’actance. Premi`ere partie: Le Sujet. In: Cath´erine Paris (ed.), Relations pr´edicat-actant(s) dans des langues de types divers, pp. 171–86. LACITO-documents. Paris: Soci´et´edEtudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. (1979b) Diccionario normalizado y comparativo quechua: Chachapoyas–Lamas.Paris: L’Harmattan. (1982a) Breve presentaci´on de la morfolog´ıa del quechua de Ferre˜nafe. Lexis 6, 2, pp. 243–70. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1982b) Aspectos de la dialectolog´ıa quechua, vol. 1: Introducci´on al quechua de Ferre˜nafe. Chantiers Amerindia. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1984) Yauyos: un microcosmo dialectal quechua. Revista Andina 2, 1, pp. 121–46. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1990a) La lengua de los antiguos chachapuyas. In: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 121–39. (1990b) Le dialecte quechua de Laraos, Yauyos:etude ´ morphologique. Bulletin de l’Institut Francais¸ d’Etudes Andines 19, 2, pp. 293–325. Lima. (1994) Estudios de dialectolog´ıa quechua (Chachapoyas, Ferre˜nafe, Yauyos). Lima: Universidad Nacional de Educaci´on. (1996a) El quechua de Ferre˜nafe: fonolog´ıa, morfolog´ıa, l´exico. Cajamarca: Acku Quinde. 674 References

(1996b) La tradici´on oral quechua de Chachapoyas. Lima: Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos. Cuzco: Asociaci´on Archivo de la Tradici´on Oral Quechua (ATOQ). (2000) Estudios ling¨u´ısticos sobre Chachapoyas. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos and Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos. Taylor, G´erald and Antonio Acosta (1987) Ritos y tradiciones de Huarochir´ı del siglo XVII. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos and Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos. Tello, Julio C. (1913) Algunas conexiones gramaticales de las lenguas campa, ipurina, moxa, baure, amuesha, goajira, del grupo o familia arawak o maipure. Revista Universitaria 8, 1, pp. 506–32. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. (1923) Arte de la lengua cholona por Fr. Pedro de la Mata. In: Inka vol. 1, pp. 690–750. Lima. Tello, Julio C. and Toribio Mej´ıa Xesspe (1979) Las lenguas del Centro Andino. In: Julio C. Tello and Toribio Mej´ıa Xesspe, Paracas. Segunda parte: Cavernas y necr´opolis, pp. 7–29. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. New York: Institute of Andean Research. Tessmann, G¨unter (1928) Menschen ohne Gott. Ein Besuch bei den Indianern des Ucayali. Stuttgart: Strecker and Schr¨oder. (1930) Die Indianer Nordost-Perus. Hamburg: Friederichsen, de Gruyter and Co. (published in Spanish in 1999 as Los ind´ıgenas del Per´u nororiental, Quito: Abya-Yala). Thiesen, Wesley (1996) Gram´atica del idioma bora. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 38. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Thiesen, Wesley and David J. Weber (forthcoming) AGrammar of Bora. Publications in Linguistics. Dallas: SIL International and the University of Texas at Arlington. Thomason, Sarah G., ed. (1997) Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence S. Kaufman (1988) Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ticona Alejo, Esteban and Xavier Alb´o Corrons (1997) La lucha por el poder comunal. Jes´us de Machaqa: la marka rebelde.LaPaz: Centro de Documentaci´on e Informaci´on (CEDOIN) and Centro de Investigaci´on y Promoci´on del Campesinado (CIPCA). Tobar Ortiz, Nubia (1989) El nominal en guayabero. In: Mel´endez Lozano and Tobar Ortiz (1989), pp. 67–134. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (2000) La lengua tinigua: anotaciones fonol´ogicas y morfol´ogicas. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 669–79. Toledo, Domingo (1989) R´egimen de educaci´on intercultural biling¨ue en Venezuela: interpretaci´on oficial. Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 10, pp. 43–54. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). Toliver, Ralph (MS 1987) Informe sobre las variedades del quechua pasque˜no. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Torero Fern´andez de C´ordova, Alfredo A. (1964) Los dialectos quechuas. Anales Cient´ıficos de la Universidad Agraria 2, 4, pp. 446–78. La Molina, Lima. (1965) Le puquina, la troisi`eme langue g´en´erale du P´erou. Doctoral dissertation, Universit´ede la Sorbonne, Paris. (1968) Procedencia geogr´afica de los dialectos quechua de Ferre˜nafe y Cajamarca. Anales Cient´ıficos de la Universidad Agraria 6, 3–4, pp. 291–316. Lima. (1970) Ling¨u´ıstica e historia de la sociedad andina. Anales Cient´ıficos de la Universidad Nacional Agraria 8, 3–4, pp. 231–64. Lima (also published in: Escobar (1972), pp. 46–106). (1974) El quechua y la historia social andina. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma. (1983) La familia ling¨u´ıstica quechua. In: Pottier (1983), pp. 61–92. (1984) El comercio lejano y la difusi´on del quechua: el caso del Ecuador. Revista Andina 2, 2, pp. 367–402. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. References 675

(1986) Deslindes ling¨u´ısticos en la costa norte peruana. Revista Andina 4, 3, pp. 523–48. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1987) Lenguas y pueblos altipl´anicos en torno al siglo XVI. Revista Andina 5, 2, pp. 329–405. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1989) Areas topon´ımicas e idiomas en la sierra norte peruana: un trabajo de recuperaci´on ling¨u´ıstica. Revista Andina 7, 1, pp. 217–57. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1990) Procesos ling¨u´ısticos e identificaci´on de dioses en los Andes centrales. Revista Andina 8, 1, pp. 237–63. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas (1992) Acerca de la familia ling¨u´ıstica uruquilla (uru-chipaya). Revista Andina 10, 1, pp. 171–91. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1993a) Lenguas del nororiente peruano: la hoya de Ja´en en el siglo XVI. Revista Andina 11, 2, pp. 447–72. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1993b) Fronteras ling¨u´ısticas y difusi´on de culto: el caso de Huari y de Contiti . In: Duviols (1993), pp. 219–33. (1994a) El ‘idioma particular’ de los Incas. In: Calvo P´erez (1994), pp. 231–40. (1994b) Las sibilantes del quechua yunga y del castellano en el siglo XVI. In: Calvo P´erez (1994), pp. 241–54. (1995) Historias de /x/: el proceso de velarizaci´on de /ˇs/ castellana seg´un su uso en escrituras de lenguas andinas en los siglos XVI y XVII. In: Teresa Echenique et al. (eds.), Historia de la lengua espa˜nola en Am´erica y Espa˜na, pp. 185–203. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch. (1996) Las hablas cauquis de Yauyos (Per´u) dentro de una propuesta de reconstrucci´on fonol´ogica del proto-aru. Libro electr´onico del I Congreso Europeo de Latinoamericanistas. Instituto de Ibero-am´erica y Portugal de la Universidad de Salamanca. (1997) La fonolog´ıa del idioma mochica en los siglos XVI–XVII. Revista Andina 15, 1, pp. 101–29. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´edeLas Casas. (1998) El marco hist´orico-geogr´afico en la interacci´on quechua-aru. In: Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz et al. (1998), pp. 601–30. (2002) Idiomas de los Andes: ling¨u´ıstica e historia. Lima: Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos, Editorial Horizonte. Torres Rubio, Diego de (1616) Arte de la lengua aymara. Lima: Francisco del Canto (republished in 1966 by Mario Franco Inojosa, Lima: Imprenta Lyrsa). (1619) Arte de la lengua quichua. Lima: Francisco Laso (republished in 1964 by Luis A. Pardo and Carlos Galimberti Miranda, Cuzco: H. G. Rozas). Toscano Mateus, Humberto (1953) El espa˜nol en el Ecuador.Revista de Filolog´ıa Espa˜nola, Anejo 61. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaci´on Cient´ıfica. Tovar, Antonio (1981) Relatos y di´alogos de los matacos. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica, Instituto de Cooperaci´on Iberoamericana. (1983) Linguistic similarity and its significance: comparative procedures. In: Shirˆo Hattori and Kazuko Inoue (eds.), Proceedings of the XXIII International Congress of Linguists (Tokyo, 29 August–4 September 1982), pp. 259–69. Tokyo. (1986) Las lenguas arahuacas: hacia una delimitaci´on m´as precisa de la familia arahuaca. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo (also in Thesaurus 41, pp. 15–57). Tovar, Antonio and Consuelo Larrucea de Tovar (1984) Cat´alogo de las lenguas de la Am´erica del Sur con clasificaciones, indicaciones tipol´ogicas, bibliograf´ıa y mapas. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. Triana y Antorveza, Humberto (1987) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas en la historia social del Nuevo Reino de Granada.Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1993) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas en el ocaso del imperio espa˜nol.Bogot´a: Instituto Colombiano de Antropolog´ıa – Colcultura. 676 References

Trillos Amaya, Mar´ıa (1989) Aspecto, modo y tiempo en damana. In: Trillos Amaya et al. (1989), pp. 1–142. (1994) Voz y predicaci´on en damana. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 401–34. (1997) Categor´ıas gramaticales del ette taara: lengua de los chimilas.Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1999) Damana. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. (2000) S´ıntesis descriptiva de los sistemas morfol´ogico y morfosint´actico del damana. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 749–56. Trillos Amaya, Mar´ıa, Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff and Carolina Ortiz Ricaurte (1989) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de Colombia: Descripciones no. 3: Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. Trivi˜no Garz´on, Lilia (1994) Hacia una tipolog´ıa de la predicaci´on de la oraci´on simple en la lengua guambiana. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 601–18. Troiani, Duna, ed. (1995) La ‘d´ecouverte’ des langues et desecritures ´ d’Am´erique. Actes du colloque international (Paris, 7–11 September 1993), Amerindia 19–20. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. Tschopik, Harry (1946) The Aymara. In: Steward (1946b), pp. 501–73. (1948) Aymara texts: Lupaca dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 14, 2, pp. 108–14. Tschudi, Johann Jakob von (1853) Die Kechua-Sprache,3vols. Vienna: Kaiserlich-k¨onigliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. (1866–9) Reisen durch S¨udamerika,5vols. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Turner, Glen D. (1958) Alternative phonemicizing in Jivaro. International Journal of American Linguistics 24, 2, pp. 87–94. Uhle, Max (1890) Verwandtschaften und Wanderungen der Tschibtscha. Acts of the 7th International Congress of Americanists (Berlin 1888), pp. 466–89. (MS 1895) Grundz¨uge einer Uro-Grammatik und Uro Vokabular. Berlin: Ibero-amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Uricoechea, Ezequiel (1871) Gram´atica, vocabulario, catecismo i confesionario de la lengua chibcha. Collection linguistique am´ericaine,vol. 1. Paris: Maisonneuve (republished in 1968 by Kraus Reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein). Va¨ısse, Emilio, F´elix Hoyos and An´ıbal Echeverr´ıa y Reyes (1896) Glosario de la lengua atacame˜na. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes (first published in 1895 in Anales de la Universidad de Chile 91, pp. 527–56, Santiago de Chile). Valdivia, Luis de (1606) Arte y gramatica general de la lengua que corre en todo el Reyno de Chile, con un vocabulario, y confessionario. Lima: Francisco del Canto (republished in 1887 by Julio Platzmann, Leipzig: B. G. Teubner). (1894 [1607]) Doctrina Cristiana y catecismo con un confesionario, Arte y vocabulario breves en lengua allentiac, ed. Jos´eToribio Medina. Seville: E. Rasco. Valenti, Donna (1986) A Reconstruction of the Proto-Arawakan Consonantal System. PhD diss. New York University. Valenzuela, Pilar M. (2000a) Ergatividad escindida en wariapano, yaminawa y shipibo-konibo. In: van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 111–28. (2000b) Major categories in Shipibo ethnobiological taxonomy. Anthropological Linguistics 42, pp. 1–36. (2003) Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo Grammar. PhD diss. University of Oregon, Eugene. Varese, Stefano (1968) La sal de los cerros. Lima: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias y Tecnolog´ıa, Departamento de Publicaciones. (1983) Los grupos etnoling¨u´ısticos de la selva andina. In: Pottier (1983), pp. 119–55. References 677

Vargas Llosa, Mario (1987) El hablador. Barcelona: Editorial Seix Barral. V´asquez de Ruiz, Beatriz (1988) La predicaci´on en guambiano.Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1994) La oraci´on compuesta en guambiano. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 619–37. (2000) Guambiano: algunos aspectos sobre morfolog´ıa nominal. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 155–67. Velasco, Juan de (1787) Vocabulario de la lengua ´ındica (1964 edition, Quito: Instituto Ecuatoriano de Antropolog´ıa y Geograf´ıa y Biblioteca Ecuatoriana ‘Aurelio Espinoza Polit’). (1789) Historia del Reino de Quito en la Am´erica meridional,3vols. (1981 edition of volumes 2 and 3 by Alfredo Pareja Diezcanseco, Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho). V´elez Di´eguez, Juan (1980) Clave artificial para identificar los peces marinos comunes en la costa central del Per´u. Bolet´ın de Lima 9 (November 1980), pp. 41–56. Lima. Vellard, Jehan A. (1950–1) Contribution a l’´etude des indiens uru ou kot’suns. Travaux de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines 2 (1950), pp. 51–88; 3 (1951), pp. 3–39. Paris, Lima. (1954) Dieux et parias des Andes. Les ourous, ceux qui ne veulent pasetre ˆ des hommes.Paris: Emile-Paul. (1967) Contribuci´on al estudio de la lengua uru. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Centro de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Vidal, Alejandra (2001) Pilag´a Grammar. PhD diss. University of Oregon, Eugene. Viegas Barros, Jos´ePedro (1990) Dialectolog´ıa qawasqar. Amerindia 15, pp. 43–73. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1992) La familia ling¨u´ıstica tehuelche. Revista Patag´onica, 12, 54, pp. 39–46. Ushuaia, Argentina. (1993) La alternancia R/L en selknam: indicios de lexicalizaci´on de simbolismo f´onico. In: Viegas Barros and Stell (1993), pp. 271–8. (1995) La reconstrucci´on de los personales en Proto-Chon. In: Fern´andez Garay and Viegas Barros (1995), pp. 271–6. (1998) Explorando la hip´otesis del parentesco alacalufe-yagan. Actas VI Jornadas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche (Temuco, 1994), pp. 281–5. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera. (2001) Evidencias de la relaci´on gen´etica lule-vilela. LIAMES 1, pp. 107–26. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. (2002) Fonolog´ıa del proto-mataguayo. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 137–48. (MS. to appear a) La lengua de los chonos del sur de Chile: una comparaci´on con el qawasqar y el yagan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas y T´ecnicas (CONICET) and Universidad de Buenos Aires. (MS. to appear b) Enoo y Gua¨ıcaro: dos entidades ling¨u´ısticas problem´aticas de la Patagonia Austral. CONICET and Universidad de Buenos Aires. Viegas Barros, Jos´ePedro and Nelida N. Stell, eds. (1993) Actas Primeras Jornadas de Ling¨u´ıstica Aborigen (Buenos Aires, 6–7 October 1992). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Vienrich, Adolfo (1906) Tarmapap pachahuarainin: ap´ologos quechuas.Tarma: La Aurora de Tarma (republished in 1999 by Pedro D´ıaz Ortiz as Azucenas quechuas – F´abulas quechuas, Lima: Ediciones Lux). Vignati, Milc´ıades Alejo (1942–6) Iconograf´ıa aborigen 1, 2, 3. Revista del Museo de la Plata, NS, 2: Secci´on de Antropolog´ıa 10, pp. 13–48; 13, pp. 225–36; 15, pp. 277–99. La Plata: Museo Nacional de La Plata. Villareal, Federico (1921) La lengua yunga o mochica seg´un el arte publicado en Lima en 1644 por el licenciado D. Fernando de la Carrera. Lima: Imprenta Peruana de E. Z. Casanova. 678 References

Villarejo, Avencio (1953) As´ıeslaselva. Estudio monogr´afico de la Amazon´ıa nor-oriental del Peru. ´ Maynas-Loreto-Requena (1st edition 1943). Lima: Sanmarti y c´ıa (republished in 1979 by Centro de Estudios Teol´ogicos de la Amazon´ıa, Iquitos). (1959) La selva y el hombre: estudio antropocosmol´ogico del aborigen amaz´onico. Lima: Editorial Ausonia SA. Vink, Hein (MS 1992) L´exico del quechua de Maca˜n´ıa (Pataz). Leiden. Vittadello, Alberto (1988) Chapalaachi: el idioma cayapa,2vols. Guayaquil: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Ecuador: Sede de Esmeraldas. Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador. Vivar, Jer´onimo de (1988 [1558]) Cr´onica de los reinos de Chile. Madrid: Historia 16 (see also Bibar). Voegelin, Carl F. and Florence M. Voegelin (1965) Languages of the world: Native America fascicle 2, Anthropological Linguistics 7, 1, pp. 146–7. Voort, Hein van der and Simon van de Kerke, eds. (2000) Essays on Indigenous Languages of Lowland South America. (Contributions to the 49th International Congress of Americanists, Quito, 1997). Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series no. 1. Leiden: Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies. Wachtel, Nathan (1978) Hommes d’eau: le probl`eme uru (XVIe–XVIIe si`ecles). Annales Economies Soci´et´es Civilisations 33, 5–6, pp. 1127–59. Paris: Armand Colin. (1990) Le retour des ancˆetres: les indiens uru de Bolivie XXe–XVIesi`ecle. Essai d’histoire r´egressive.Paris: Gallimard. Wagner, Erika (1967) The Prehistory and Ethnohistory of the Carache Area in Western Venezuela. New Haven: Yale University, Department of Anthropology. Watahomigie, Lucille J. and Akira Y. Yamamoto (1992) Local reactions in perceived language decline. Language 68, pp. 10–17. Weber, David John (1983) Relativization and Nominalized Clauses in Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua. University of California Publications in Linguistics 103. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. ed. (1987a) Juan del Oso. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 26. Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1987b) Estudios quechua: planificaci´on, historia y gram´atica. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 27. Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1989) AGrammar of Huallaga (Hu´anuco) Quechua. University of California Publications in Linguistics 112. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. (1994) Ortograf´ıa. Lecciones del quechua. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 32. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Weber, David John and Peter N. Landerman (1985) The interpretation of long vowels in Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 1, pp. 94–108. Weber, David John, F´elix Cayco Zambrano, Teodoro Cayco Villar and Marlene Ballena D´avila (1998) Rimaycuna. Quechua de Hu´anuco. Diccionario del quechua del Huallaga con ´ındices castellano e ingl´es. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 48. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Weisshar, Emmerich (1982) Die Stellung des Warao und Yanomama in Beziehung zu den indigenen Sprachen S¨udamerikas n¨ordlich des Amazonas: Studien zur genetischen und areal-typologischen Klassifikation. PhD diss. University of T¨ubingen. Wheeler, Alva (2000) La lengua siona. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 181–98. Whiffen, Thomas (1915) The North-West Amazonas: Notes of Some Months Spent among Cannibal Tribes. London: Constable. References 679

Whitehead, Neil L. (1999) The crises and transformations of invaded societies: the Caribbean (1492–1580). In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1, pp. 864–903. Wilbert, Johannes, ed. (1975) Folk Literature of the Selknam Indians. Martin Gusinde’s Collection of Selknam Narratives. Los Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications. (1977) Folk Literature of the Yamana Indians: Martin Gusinde’s Collection of Yamana Narratives. Los Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications. Wilbert, Johannes and Karin Simoneau, eds. (1984) Folk Literature of the Tehuelche Indians. Los Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications. Willey, Gordon R. (1971) An Introduction to American Archaeology,vol. 2: South America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Wilson, Peter J. (1992) Gram´atica del achagua (arawak).Bogot´a: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Wipio Deicat, Gerardo (1996) Diccionario Aguaruna–Castellano Castellano–Aguaruna. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Wise, Mary Ruth (1976) Apuntes sobre la influencia inca entre los amuesha: factor que oscurece la clasificaci´on de su idioma. Revista del Museo Nacional 42, pp. 355–66. Lima. (1982) Una contribuci´on de Julio C. Tello a la clasificaci´on de las lenguas aut´octonas. Lexis 6, 1, pp. 125–9. Lima: Pontifica Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1985) Indigenous languages of Lowland Peru: history and current status. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 194–223. (1986) Grammatical characteristics of Pre-Andine Arawakan languages of Peru. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1986), pp. 567–642. (1991) Un estudio comparativo de las formas pronominales y sus funciones en las lenguas arawakas norte˜nas. In: Ling¨u´ıstica arawaka. Estudios presentados en el 46oCongreso Internacional de Americanistas (Amsterdam, 4–8 July 1988). Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnoling¨u´ısticos 6, pp. 183–99. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor. W¨olck, Wolfgang (1972) Foco y especificaci´on en quechua. Documento de Trabajo 4. Lima: Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. (1987) Peque˜no breviario quechua. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Wolf, Teodoro (1892) Geograf´ıa y geolog´ıa del Ecuador. Leipzig. Woolard, Kathryn A. and Bambi Schieffelin (1994) Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23, pp. 55–82. Y´anez Coss´ıo, Consuelo and Fausto Jara Jara (1983) Nucanchic˜ llactapac shimi,vol. 1 (3rd edition). Quito: Centro de Investigaciones para la Educaci´on Ind´ıgena. Yapita, Juan de Dios (1991) Curso de aymara pace˜no.StAndrews: Institute of Amerindian Studies, University of St Andrews. Yo koyama, Masako (1951) Outline of Quechua structure. I: Morphology. Language 27, 1, pp. 38–67. Yule Yatacu´e, Marcos (1991a) Estructura distribucional del verbo en nasa yuwe. In: Rojas Curieux (1991c), pp. 139–90. (1991b) Fonolog´ıa: variante Torib´ıo. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 97–120. Zamora Munn´e, Juan C. and Jorge M. Guitart (1982) Dialectolog´ıa hispanoamericana: teor´ıa, descripci´on, historia. Salamanca: Ediciones Alma. Zamponi, Raoul (1996) Materiali in betoi e variet`a linguistiche affini dei ‘llanos’ colombiani. Quaderno 3 del Seminario Interdisciplinare della Facolt`adiLettere e Filosofia. Siena: Universit`adegli Studi di Siena. Zevallos Qui˜nones, Jorge (1948) Primitivas lenguas de la costa. Revista del Museo Nacional 17, pp. 114–19. Lima. (1966) Onom´astica prehisp´anica de Chachapoyas. Lenguaje y Ciencias 6, pp. 28–41. Trujillo, Peru: Universidad de Trujillo, Departamento de Idiomas y Ling¨u´ıstica. 680 References

(1989) Los cacicazgos de Lambayeque.Trujillo, Peru: Gr´afica Cuatro SA. (1992) Los cacicazgos de Trujillo.Trujillo, Peru: Gr´afica Cuatro SA. Zimmermann, Klaus, ed. (1997) La descripci´on de las lenguas amerindias en laepoca ´ colonial. Bibliotheca Iberoamericana, vol. 63. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana. Zolezzi, Gabriela and J¨urgen Riester (1985) Cantar´eamigente. Canto y poes´ıa de los ayor´eode. Cochabamba and Santa Cruz: Apoyo para el Campesino Ind´ıgena del Oriente Boliviano (APCOB). Z´u˜niga, Fernando (2000) Mapudungun. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Zwartjes, Otto, ed. (2000) Las gram´aticas misioneras de tradici´on hisp´anica (siglos XVI–XVII). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. AUTHOR INDEX

Acosta, A. 255 Arango Ochoa, R. 56, 66, 75, 80, 109, 112, Acosta, J. de 23–4, 48 116, 141, 151, 164, 610 Acosta Orteg´on, J. 83 Araya, G. 589 Acosta Saignes, M. 130 Arcila Robledo, G. 60 Adam, L. 83, 91, 476–88, 554, 567–73, Ardila, O. 162, 164 578 Arguedas, J. M. 256 Adelaar, W. F. H. xv, 21, 39, 43, 87, 170, 173, Ari, M. 296 186, 188–90, 193, 203, 224–5, 227, 242, Armellada, C. de 80, 116 262, 398, 402, 459, 601, 616 Arnold, D. 296 Aguilar P´aez, R. 191 Arnold, J. 511, 523–5, 528 Aguilera Fa´undez, O. 553–4, 565–6 Arocha Rodr´ıguez, J. 62 Aguil´o, F. 356 Arriaza, B. T. 2 Aguirre Licht, D. 57–60 Aschmann, R. P. 164, 449 Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2, 21, 39, 164, 411, 612 Asher, R. E. 21 Albis, M. M. 140 Augusta, F. J. de 509, 511–16, 519–22, 524, Alb´o Corrons, X. 14, 176, 261–2, 296–7, 357, 526–41 363, 589, 606, 608 Avila, F. de 174, 255 Alderetes, J. R. 221 Alencastre, A. 255 Bacelar, L. N. 376 Alexander(-Bakkerus), A. 460, 463–4, Baessler, H. 460 466 Balmori, C. H. 31, 386 Allaire, L. 8 Barzana (B´arcena, B´arzana), A. de 20, 351, Allin, T. R. 39, 162 408, 502 Alonso, A. 511 Bastian, A. 57 Altieri, R. 322–46 Bastien, J. 356 Alvar, M. 82 Bausani, A. 552–3, 564–5 Alvarez, E. 433 Beier, C. 610 Alvarez, J. 115–23 Belleza Castro, N. 171, 260, 265, 267, 281, Alvarez-Brun, F. 170 301–6, 313–15, 317–19 Alvarez-Santullano Busch, M. P. 509–10, 514, Bendor-Samuel, J. T. 448–9 530 Benvenuto Murrieta, P. M. 589 Andagoya, P. de 49, 53 Berm´udez, G. 81 Andrade Ciudad, L. F. 401 Bertonio, L. 16, 20, 191, 259, 264, 266, Angenot-de Lima, G. 477, 614 270, 276–8, 280–5, 287, 289–90, Animato, C. 254 293–6 Ans, A.-M. d’ 176, 418–19 Betanzos, J. de 178–9 Appel, R. 19 Beuchat, H. 141, 433, 436, 438 682 Author index

Bibar, G. de 22, 409, 508 Casamiquela, R. M. 550, 554, 556–8, 561–4, Bickerton, D. 605 582–3 Bird, J. 553, 555 Casanova, V. 315 Bixio, B. 545 Castellanos, J. de 48, 124 Bonilla, V.D. 151 Castro de Trelles, L. 401 Borman, M. B. 161 Catarroja, F. de 80 Bouysse-Cassagne, T. 171, 176, 263, Catrileo, M. 511 362 Celed´on, R. 67, 117, 124 Bowman, I. 376 Cenepo Sangama, V. 193 Boyd-Bowman, P. 586–7 Censabella, M. 21, 41, 488–9, 610 Brack Egg, A. 610 Cerr´on-Palomino, R. M. xv, 13, 20–1, 35, Branks, J. 142–3 168–70, 178–9, 182, 189, 192–4, 197, Branks, T. 142–3 201–4, 210, 213, 257, 259–60, 265–6, Bravo, D. A. 177, 193 270, 273–4, 276, 280–2, 285–6, 301–2, Brend, R. M. 142 305, 317, 320–4, 327, 363–74, 595–6, Bresson, A. 176 599 Bridges, L. 580 Chamberlain, A. F. 26, 552 Bridges, T. 550, 554, 567–74, 578, 581 Chandless, W. 459 Briggs, J. R. 496–7 Chaparro, C. 207 Briggs, L. T. 168, 262, 264–6, 268, 271, 273, Chatwin, B. 572 275, 277–8, 280–5, 287–90, 293, 295–6, Chaumeil, J.-P. 417 298, 300, 496 Chaves, M. 114 Brijnen, H. B. 580 Chaves Mendoza, A. 49, 52, 75 Brinton, D. G. 20, 25–6, 141 Ch´avez, A. 193 Brundage, B. C. 167 Chirif, A. 416–17, 419, 423, 431, 433, 452, Br¨uning, E. 321, 400 457, 459 Buchwald, O. von 400 Chirinos Rivera, A. 13, 168, 187, 258, 262, Buesa Oliver, T. 591 402, 610 B¨uttner, T. T. 194, 260, 278–9 Chom´e, I. 496 Cieza de Le´on, P. de 22, 48–9, 179, 392–4, Cabello Valboa, M. 320, 350 404 Cabral, A. S. A. C. 432 Claesson, K. 493–5 Cabrera, P. 409 Clairis (Clair-Vassiliadis), C. 21, 265, 379, Caillavet, C. 393–4 550, 552–6, 565–7, 578, 582 Cajas Rojas, J. 458 Cobo, B. 22, 24, 178 Calancha, A. de la 320, 400 Cohen, M. 26 Calle Restrepo, H. 49 Cole, P. 17, 193–4 Calvache Due˜nas, R. 57, 142–5, Comrie, B. xv, 224 148 Condori Cruz, D. 260, 278–9 Calvo P´erez, J. 255 Condori Mamani, G. 249, 255 Camacho, J. 596 Constenla Uma˜na, A. 30, 37–8, 49–53, 55–8, Camp, E. L. 421 61–2, 70, 73–4, 80, 82–8, 114–15, 128–30, Campbell, L. 21, 35, 38, 42, 497 142, 145, 155–6, 161 Canals Frau, S. 409 Contreras, C. 510, 530 Canto, J. del 401 Contreras, H. 511 Captain, D. 117, 120, 121 Co˜na, P. 511, 539 Carlin, E. B. 115 Coombs, D. 193 Carpenter, L. K. 192 Coombs, H. 193 Carrasco, V. 260 Cooper, J. M. 550–6 Carrera Daza, F. de la 16, 84, 319–46 Corbera Mori, A. 438 Author index 683

Cordero, L. 192, 255 Espejo Ayka, E. 296 C´ordova, L. 243 Espinoza Soriano, W. 259, 404 Correal Urrego, G. 8 Esquivel Villafana, J. 192 Cotari, D. 260, 278–80, 290 Courtney, E. 597 Fabre, A. 21, 171 Creider, J. 201 Fals Borda, O. 62 Cr´equi-Montfort, G. de 39, 175, 191 Farf´an, J. M. B. 192, 305, 315–19 Crevels, M. 476, 610, 613–14, 616 Faron, L. C. 27–8 Crickmay, L. 17 Fast, P. W. 424 Croese, R. A. 40, 509, 511, 515 Fawcett, P. H. 417 Cuba Manrique, M. del C. 401 Febr´es, A. 510 Cuervo, R. J. 588 Febr´es Cordero, T. 124 Cueva, R.P.G.dela476 Fern´andez Garay, A. V. xv, 505, 510–11, 514, Curnow, T. J. xv, 38, 57, 141–8, 150, 397 516, 528, 550, 555–6, 558, 563–4, 580, Cusihuaman, A. 193, 250, 252 582–3 Fern´andez de Oviedo y Valdez, G. 116 Dadey, J. 83 Ferrario, B. 41, 181 Darwin, C. 550 Ferrell, M. A. 171, 261–2 Davidson, J. O. 35 Fiedel, S. J. 1–2, 506 Davis, I. 34, 40 Figueredo, J. de 181 Dedenbach(-Salazar S´aenz), S. 16, 192, 292, Firestone, H. L. 431 296 Fischer, M. 56 Derbyshire, D. 21, 423 Fischermann, B. 496 D´ıaz Fern´andez, A. E. 505, 514 Flores Reyna, M. 401 Dickinson, C. 147 Flornoy, B. 433 Dietrich, W. 431–2 Fonseca, A. 124–5 Diez de San Miguel, G. 259, 264 Fontanella de Weinberg, M. B. 511, 587 Dillehay, T. D. 1, 506 Fornaguera, M. 114 Dixon, R. M. W. 2, 21, 411 Foster, G. 586 Duff(-Tripp), M. 424–30 Frank, P. S. 66–70, 72–4 Dum´ezil, G. 34 Fraunhaeusl, S. de 511 D¨ummler, C. 16, 83 Friede, J. 138–40 DuPonceau, P. S. 522 Friedemann, N. S. de 62, 605 Duque G´omez, L. 49 Furlong, G. 386 Durbin, M. 38, 53, 112–16, 161 Fuss, M. 478, 481 Duviols, P. 191 Galeote Tormo, J. 478, 481, 485–6 Ebbing, J. E. 260, 285 Garc´ıa Hierro, P. 417 Echeverr´ıa, M. S. 511 Garc´ıa Tom´as, M. D. 447 Echeverr´ıa y Reyes, A. 376 Garcilaso de la Vega, Inca 23, 172, 178–81, Echeverr´ıa Weasson, S. 511, 515 397 Eckstein, S. 10 Gelles, P. H. 249, 254 Eguillor, M. I. 606 Gerzenstein, A. 391, 495, 562 England, N. C. 278–81, 299 Gibson, M. L. 456 Ercilla, A. de 506 Gijn, R. van 476 Escalante, A. 605 Gilij, F. S. 24 Escalante Guti´errez, C. 249, 255–6 Gill, W. 476 Escobar, A. 201 Girard, V. 39, 171, 419 Escobar, A. M. 589, 596 Girault, L. 356–61 Escribens Trisano, A. 192, 207 Gleich, U. von 258, 606–8 684 Author index

Gnerre, M. 172, 396, 433, 604 Harrison, W. 379 Godenzzi, J. C. 595 Hart, H. 447 Golbert de Goodbar, P. 511, 514, 554, 567–78, Hart, R. E. 460 582 Hartmann, R. 182, 392–3 G´omez-Imbert, E. 162–4 Haude, K. 476 Gonzales de Barc´ıa Carballido y Z´u˜niga, A. 32 Havestadt, B. de 508, 510 Gonz´alez, T. A. 401 Hawkins, J. A. 597 Gonz´alez Holgu´ın, D. 16–18, 20, 191, 199, Hayes, B. 118 219 Headland, E. R. 110–12 Gonz´alez N´˜ a˜nez, O. 610 Helberg Ch´avez, H. 459 Gonz´alez de P´erez, M. S. 21, 55, 59, 81, 83–5, Hemming, J. 3, 46–8, 75, 179 87–109, 164 Henry, V. 478–88 Gordon, A. M. 589 Hermon, G. 192, 194 Goulet, J. -G. 117 Hern´andez, G. B. 582 Granda, G. de 177, 588–9, 595–6, 599 Hern´andez, I. 408, 410 Grasserie, R. de la 351–5 Herrero, J. 193, 260, 265, 275, 589, 601 Gray, A. 3, 417, 459 Herv´as y Panduro, L. 17, 24–5 Greenberg, J. H. 26–9, 37–45, 57, 61–2, 142, Hildebrandt, M. 117, 122 175, 380, 482 Hoff, B. J. 24, 113, 115 Grimes, B. F. 125, 416 Holmer, N. M. 56, 62–5, 67, 117 Grimes, J. 511, 525 Holt, D. 73 Grinevald (Craig), C. 102, 476, 609 Hooykaas, E. M. 53 Grondona, V.M. 489 Hornberger, N. 194, 606 Groot de Mahecha, A. M. 53 Hos´okawa, K. 176 Grosboll, S. 393 Hout, R. van 589 Gualdieri, C. B. 489, 493 Hovdhaugen, E. 321, 324, 326–7 Guaman Poma de Ayala, F. 174, 254, 261, Howard, L. 56, 151–4 296 Howard(-Malverde), R. 256–7, 262, 364, Guardia, J. 236 395 Guerra Eissmann, A. M. 570 Howkins, D. W. 197 Gugenberger, E. 607 Hoyos, F. 376 Guillaume, A. 422 Hoyos Ben´ıtez, M. E. 59 Guitart, J. M. 588 Huayhua Pari, F. 171 Gusinde, M. 550, 554, 567–9, 580–1 Huber, R. Q. 55, 85 Guti´errez, C. 80 Humboldt, W. von 18 Guti´errez, I. 609 Husson, J.-Ph. 254 Guyot, M. 550, 554–5, 580 Hvalkof, S. 417

Haboud (de Ortega), Marleen 595, 599 Ibarra Grasso, D. 41, 176, 376 Hammen, Th. van der 8 Imbelloni, J. 41 Hammerly Dupuy, D. 553 Isbell, W. H. 165 Hamp, E. P. 38 Itier, C. 168, 183, 236 Hardman (-de-Bautista), M. J. 21, 34, 170–1, 174, 211, 260, 264–5, 269, 272, 283–7, Jackson, S. 164 290–3, 301–17, 590 Jahn, A. 124–30 Harmelink, B. L. 511, 518, 520 Jamioy Muchavisoy, J. N. 152 Harms, Ph. L. 59–60 Jaramillo G´omez, O. 112 Harner, M. 433 Jensen, C. 431 Harrington, J. P. 26, 34 Jij´on y Caama˜no, J. 26–7, 36–8, 41, 49, 61, Harris, O. 262 155–9, 172, 321, 392–5, 397 Author index 685

Jim´enez de la Espada, M. 174, 261, 385, Lefebvre, C. 17, 19, 192, 226 393–7, 405, 408, 502 Lehmann, W. 321, 344–8, 363, 401 Jim´enez Turr´on, S. 606 Lehmann-Nitsche, R. 41, 493, 554, 556 Jones, P. 164 Lehnert Santander, R. 376–9 Jones, W. 164 Lemle, M. 431 Juajibioy Chindoy, A. 152–5 Lengerke, G. von 114 Juank, A. 433–43, 445–7 Lenz, R. 509–11, 515, 590 Judy, J. 476 L´evi-Strauss, C. 4, 37, 580, 609 Judy, R. A. 476 Levinsohn, S. H. 19, 193 Julien, C. J. 175 Liccardi, M. 476 Juncosa, J. E. 610 Liddicoat, A. J. 38, 57, 141–5, 150 Jung, I. 131–8, 140, 592, 606 Liedtke, S. 34 Jusay´u, M. A. 117, 120, 122, 124 Lindskoog, C. A. 142, 145, 147–50 Lindskoog, J. N. 142, 145, 147–50 Kany, C. F. 588–9 Lipski, J. M. 587, 605 Karsten, R. 433–6, 439, 447 Lira, J. A. 192, 255 Kaufman, T. S. 2, 21, 26, 29–34, 38, 40, 43, Llam´ın Canulaf, S. 539 61, 142, 188, 456 Llerena Villalobos, R. 49, 57–9, 62–6 Keatinge, R. W. 7 Loewen, J. A. 57–9 Kensinger, K. M. 418, 419 Long, V. 142–3, 145, 150 Kerke, S. C. van de 21, 192, 475–6, 617 Longacre, R. E. 35, 38, 195 Key, H. 476 Loos, B. 420–21 Key, M. R. 21, 28, 31, 39, 419, 511, 556 Loos, E. 419–21 Kilku Warak’a 255 L´opez, Lorenzo E. 129 King, K. A. 607 L´opez, Luis E. 194, 296, 592, 606–7 Kingsley Noble, G. 39, 175 L´opez Garc´ıa, A. 83 Kirtchuk, P. 197 Loukotka, C.ˇ 21, 26, 30–4, 37, 52, 56, 62, Klee, C. A. 589 142, 159, 162, 176, 180, 392, 395, 397, 410, Klein, H. E. M. 21, 177, 489–92 502, 553–4, 616 Kramer, F. 56 Lowes, R. H. G. 498 Krauss, M. 609 Lozano, A. G. 593, 596–7 Kr¨usi, D. 478 Lozano, E. 31, 178, 391, 408–9 Kr¨usi, M. 478 Lozano, P. 408–9 Krzanowski, A. 404 Lucca, M. de 260, 363 Lucena Salmoral, M. 82–3, 87, 98 Ladefoged, P. 117 Lugo, B. de 16, 82–8, 95, 97–9, 102, Lafone Quevedo, S. A. 386 106–7 Lagos Altamirano, D. S. 511, 515 Luj´an, M. 597–8 Lanchas de Estrada, S. 60–1 Lumbreras, L. G. 165 Landaburu, J. 34, 54–5, 67–71, 73, 114, Lussagnet, S. 496 162–4, 610, 621 Lynch, T. F. 2, 8 Landerman, P. N. 185, 187–9, 192–3, 197, 200 Lyon, P. J. 22 Laprade, R. 589, 591, 600–1 Lara, J. 193, 254–5 Macera, P. 1 Lares, J. I. 124 Machoni de Cerde˜na, A. 385–90 Larra´ın Barros, H. 188 Mackert, M. 522 Larrucea de Tovar, C. 21 MacNeish, R. 1 Lastra, Y. 193 McQuown, N. A. 27–8, 30, 180 Lathrap, D. W. 27, 182, 419 Maglio, B. 376 Layme, F. 261, 296–7 Malone, T. 76 686 Author index

Mannheim, B. 3, 24, 175, 179–80, 183–5, Mogrovejo, T. de 401 191–5, 200, 261–2, 607 Molina, C. de 254 Mansen, R. 117, 120–1 Mongu´ıS´anchez, J. R. 151–2, 154–5 Mansilla, L. V. 507 Monta˜no Arag´on, M. 422 Maque Capira, A. 262 Montes Rodr´ıguez, M. E. 164 Margery Pe˜na, E. 38, 57–8 Montoya, R. 256 Markham, C. R. 192 Moore, B. R. 142–5, 147, 394 M´arquez Miranda, F. 544 Moore, T. H. 376, 383 Mart´ın, E. H. 408 Mora Bernasconi, C. 416–7, 419, 423, 431, Martin, L. 259, 269, 271 433, 452, 457, 459 Mart´ın, M. D. 194 Morales G´omez, J. 49 Mart´ınez Compa˜n´on B. J. 20, 173, 320, Moseley, C. 21 398–402, 460–2 Mosonyi, E. E. 117, 120, 124, 606, 610 Mart´ınez Escobar, G. 249, 254 Mosonyi, J. C. 117, 124, 606, 610 Mart´ınez Sarasola, C. 386, 502, 510 Mostny, G. 377, 383–5 Martins, S. 163 Murra, J. V. 6 Martins, V. 163 Mur´ua, M. de 178 Mason, J. A. 26, 30, 35, 180, 376 Mutis, J. C. 54, 82, 140 Masson, P. 363 Muysken, P. C. xv, 17, 19, 192, 226, 239, Mata, P. de la 20, 460–75 356–8, 363–5, 367, 370–4, 589, Matisoff, J. 43 598–9 Matteson, E. 39, 423 Myers, S. K. 607 Medina, J. T. 544–5 Megenney, W. W. 605 Najlis, E. L. 489, 495, 550, 554–5, 557–61 Meggers, B. J. 27 Nardi, R. L. J. 177–8, 192, 376, 380, 408–9 Meira, S. 161 Nebrija, A. de 16 Meillet, A. 26 Neira, A. de 162 Mej´ıa, J. 260 Newfield, M. 195 Mej´ıa Fonnegra, G. 59 Newson, L. A. 392 Mej´ıas, H. A. 591 Nieves Oviedo, R. 130–5, 138 Mel´endez Lozano, M. 75, 110, 152–5, Ninaling´on, S. 404 163–4 Ni˜no Murcia, M. 599 Meli´a, B. 610 Noort, O. van 581 Meneses Morales, T. 254 Nordenski¨old, E. 5, 48, 56, 418, 430, 500 Menges, P. A. 599 Nowak, E. 17 Mera, J. L. 255 Messineo, M. C. 489–93, 608 Obando Ord´o˜nez, P. 142 M´etraux, A. 363 Oblitas Poblete, E. 356–61 Miccinelli, C. 254 Olawsky, K. xv, 458 Michael, L. 610 Olaya Perdomo, N. 67, 73–4 Middendorf, E. W. 18–19, 25, 83, 192, 261, Olson, R. D. 38, 43, 175, 363–6, 372, 320–50 375 Migliazza, E. C. 21, 37, 40 Olza Zubiri, J. 117, 120, 122, 124, 422 Millones, L. 9 Oramas, L. R. 129 Minaya, L. 597 Orbigny, A. D. d’ 25, 477, 581 Miranda Mamani, L. 362 Or´e, L. J. de 322, 351–6 Mithun, M. 42 Oroz, R. 589 Mitre, B. 544–5, 548 Orr, C. J. 35, 195 Moesbach, E. W. de 511, 538–9 Ortega Ricaurte, C. 54–5, 453–9 Mogoll´on P´erez, M. C. 80–1 Ortiz, S. E. 55, 61 Author index 687

Ortiz Ricaurte, C. 67–70, 72 Pullum, G. 21 Ossio Acu˜na, J. M. 9 Pyle, R. C. 294 Ostler, N. xv, 52, 55, 82–4, 87, 89–96, 98–102, 106–9, 111 Queixal´os, F. 21, 162, 164 Quesada Castillo, F. 193, 403 Pab´on Triana, M. 141 Quesada Pacheco, M. A. 82, 87, 100–101, Pach´on, X. 130–1 106 P´aez, J. 116 Quijano Otero, J. M. 82 Pallares, J. M. 155 Quinchavil Su´arez, L. 515 Paniagua Loza, F. 296 Quispe Huam´an, A. 249 Pantoja Alc´antara, I. del R. 401–3 Parada, E. 589 Rabinowitz, J. 320 Pardo Rojas, M. 57–8 Raimondi, A. 170 Park, M. 193 Ramos Cabredo, J. 320, 398, 400–1 Parker, G. J. 34, 181, 185–6, 192–3, 195, 203, Ramos Pizarro, N. 608 205, 207, 209–10, 216, 223, 232 Raymond, J. S. 6, 499 Parker, S. G. 39, 353 Reed, R. B. 55, 85 Pati˜no Rosselli, C. 164, 450, 605 Reichel-Dolmatoff, A. 114 Patte, M.-F. 116–18 Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 8, 53, 56, 67, 75, Payne, David L. 39–40, 116, 162, 422–30, 114 457, 539 Remy, P. 403 Payne, Doris L. 21, 34, 40, 164, 458 Renault-Lescure, O. 21 Payne, T. E. 164, 458 Reuse, W. de 202 PazyMi˜no, L. T. 172, 392–6 Ribero, J. 162 Peeke, M. C. 452, 454–5 Ricardo, A. 182, 191, 219 Pellizzaro, S. M. 433–6, 438–41 Rick, J. W. 1 Perea y Alonso, S. 41 Riedmayer, O. 433, 435 P´erez de Barradas, J. 22 Riester, J. 477–8, 481, 496 P´erez van Leenden, F. 115 Rivano, E. 511 Perl, M. 588 Rivarola, J. L. 167, 182, 589 Petersen de Pi˜neros, G. 449 Rivera, M. A. 552 Phelan, J. L. 155, 416 Rivet, P. 26, 34, 36–9, 41, 49, 54–5, Philippi, R. A. 376, 379 57, 61, 80, 116, 124–8, 138, 140–1, Piedrahita, L. F. de 52 161, 173, 175, 191, 320, 397–8, Pigafetta, A. 15 400–1, 405–6, 433, 436, 438, 449, Pike, E. G. 454–6 461, 470 Pike, K. L. 454 Robayo Moreno, C. A. 112–14 Pineda Giraldo, R. 114 Rochereau, H. 110 Piossek Prebisch, T. 408 Rodrigues, A. D. 34, 39–40, 431–2, 621 Pizarro, P. 181 Rodr´ıguez, G. 377 Poblete Mendoza, M. T. 265, 567–70 Rodr´ıguez Baquero, L. E. 115 Polo, J. T. 363 Rodr´ıguez Garrido, J. A. 593–4 Porterie-Guti´errez, L. 260, 265, 272, 364, Rodr´ıguez Gonz´alez, S. P. 163 375 Rodr´ıguez de Montes, M. L. 21, 55, 59, 164 Posnansky, A. 363 Rojas Curieux, T. 132–6 Pottier, B. 21 Rojas de Perdomo, L. 8 Pozzi-Escot, I. 13, 171, 258, 610 Romero, F. 604 Preuss, K. Th. 56, 67 Romoli, K. 3, 62 Proulx, P. 189 Rona, J. P. 41 Puente Baldoceda, B. 593, 597, 599 R¨osing, I. 356 688 Author index

Rossi, P. A. 254 Smeets, I. 511, 513–44 Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, M. 403 Sol´a, D. F. 193, 197 Rouby, A. 433, 435 Sol´ıs Fonseca, G. 192, 194 Rowe, J. H. 16, 56, 62, 180, 258, 320 Sorensen, A. P. 164 Ru´ız, G. 32 Soto Ru´ız, C. 193, 216 Spruce, R. 400 S´aez Godoy, L. 377, 379, 385 Stahl, W. 498 Saint, R. 454–6 Stark, L. R. 21, 38, 182, 188, 192, 200, 321, Sakel, J. 375, 476, 618 356–8, 361, 511 Salas, A. 21, 265, 509–11, 514–17, 521, Stevenson, W. B. 155 525–6, 539, 567–70 Steward, J. H. 27–8, 416, 499 Salas, J. A. 321 Stratford, B. D. 596 Salas, J. C. 125 Strom, C. 164 Salomon, F. 255, 393–4, 406 Su´arez, J. A. 31, 32, 39–41, 511 San Pedro, J. de 401 Su´arez Roca, J. L. 16 San Rom´an, F. 376–85 Suˇsnik, B. J. 41, 497–8 S´anchez, G. 507 Swadesh, M. 29–30, 34, 39, 42–3, 376 S´anchez Guti´errez, E. 56, 66, 75, 80, 109, Swisshelm, G. 193 112, 116, 141, 151, 164, 610 Szemi´nski, J. 178, 404 S´anchez de Lozada, F. 193 Sankoff, D. 597 Tastevin, C. 449 Santa Gertrudis, J. de 53 Tate, N. 294 Santacruz, M. de 296 Taussig, M. T. 3, 417 Santo Tom´as, D. de 16–18, 174, 179, 181, Taylor, A. C. 140, 397, 411–18, 423 187, 191, 198, 261 Taylor, D. 116 Sapir, E. 36 Taylor, G. 173, 186, 189, 192–3, 198, 207, Sayritupac Asqui, D. 296 221, 255, 406–7 Schieffelin, B. 590 Tello, J. C. 39, 460 Schleicher, C. O. 432 Tenorio, M. 585 Sch¨ottelndreyer, M. 56 Tessmann, G. 456, 460–3, 499 Schreiber, K. J. 165 Thiesen, W. 164, 450–1 Schuchard, B. 478 Ticona, A. E. 363 Schuller, R. 376 Tobar Ortiz, N. 161, 164 Schumacher de Pe˜na, G. 321 Toledo, D. 606 Schwegler, A. 588 Toliver, R. 197, 202 Seelwische, J. 494 Torero Fern´andez de C´ordova, A. A. xv, 21, Seely, M. 125 34, 170, 172–5, 178, 181, 185–6, 189–90, Seijas, H. 38, 53, 112–16, 161 192, 194–5, 199, 207, 256, 261–3, 320, Seler, E. 34, 155–9 323–4, 326, 328, 350–7, 362, 364, 375, Serrano, A. 408 397–403, 461 Shady Sol´ıs, R. 2, 165 Torres Rubio, D. de 18, 259 Shafer, R. 39, 66 Toscano Mateus, H. 588, 599–600 Shell, O. 39, 418 Tovar, A. 21, 39, 40, 391, 493 Sherzer, J. 56, 62–6 Triana y Antorveza, H. 3, 46, 53, 55, 163 Silva Santisteban, F. 401 Trillos Amaya, M. 66–9, 71–3, 75–9 Sim´on, P. 22–3, 48 Trivi˜no Garz´on, L. 142, 146, 150 Simoneau, K. 556, 580 Troiani, D. 16 Simson, A. 604 Tschopik, H. 263, 296 Skottsberg, C. 552–3 Tschudi, J. J. von 192, 376–7, 379–85 Author index 689

Turner, C.G.42 Watahomigie, L. J. 609 Turner, G. D. 433–6 Weber, D. J. 17, 164, 189, 192–3, 197, 256–7 Weber, N. 193 Uhle, M. 25, 37, 52, 363–4, 366–7 Weber, R. 193 Uricoechea, E. 48, 54, 81–3, 91, 100, 103, Weisshar, E. 37 109–10, 130 Wheeler, A. 152–5 Urioste, G. L. 255 Whiffen, Th. 417 Whitehead, N. L. 62 Va¨ısse, E. 376–85, 539 Wilbert, J. 30, 556, 580 Valderrama, R. 249, 256 Willey, G. R. 156 Valdivia, L. de xvi, 16, 508–10, 512–18, 522, Wilson, P. J. 164 526–30, 533, 536–8, 544–9 Wipio Deicat, G. 397 Valenti, D. 39 Wise, M. R. 22, 39, 118, 418, 423–30 Valenzuela Bismarck, P. M. 421 W¨olck, W. 192–3, 607 Valera, B. 254, 397–8 Wolf, J. C. 582 Varese, S. 13, 418, 423 Wolf, T. 155 Vargas Llosa, M. 411 Woolard, K. A. 590 V´asquez, J. 260 V´asquez de Ru´ız, B. 142–3, 146 Yamamoto, A. 609 Velasco, J. de 192, 392, 394, 397 Y´a˜nez, C. 610 Vellard, J. A. 362–4, 371–5 Yapita Moya, J. de D. 260, 265, 268, 270–3, Vidal, A. 489 275–6, 281–93, 296–7 Viegas Barros, J. P. 41, 386, 495, 505, 552–3, Yapu Mamani, E. 296 556, 558–9, 562, 565, 580–2 Yo koyama, M. 19 Vienrich, A. 192 Yule Yatacu´e, M. 132–3 Vignati, M. A. 542 Villareal, F. 322–5, 333, 335, 338, 341–2 Zamora Munn´e, J. C. 588 Vink, H. 173 Zamponi, R. 161 Vittadello, A. 141–2, 145 Zegura, S. 42 Voegelin, C. F. 38 Zevallos Qui˜nones, J. 320, 406 Voegelin, F. M. 38 Zimmermann, K. 16 Zolezzi, G. 496 Wachtel, N. 175–6, 259, 362 Z´u˜niga, F. 511 Wagner, E. 124 Z´u˜niga Cazorla, N. 255 Wass´en, S. H. 56 Zwartjes, O. 17 INDEX OF LANGUAGES AND ETHNIC GROUPS

abajero (dialect of Guajiro) 115, 121 Andean 28, 42, 44 Abip´on 488–9 Andean A 28 Achagua 24, 55, 116, 162, 164, 423 Andean B 28 Achual, Achuar 432–3 Andean–Equatorial 28, 42 Aconipa, see Tabancale Andean Spanish 160, 206, 217, 224, 585–602 Afro-American Spanish 605 Andoa 451–2 Agatano 52 Andoque, Andoke 31, 33–4, 44, 164, 417 Aguaruna 173, 397, 406, 432–5, 438 Angutero 453 Aimara (historical nation) 179, 259 Anserma (language of) 49 Aimara ayacuchano 262 Antioquia (languages of) 44, 49 Ai-ngae, see Cof´an A˜n´un, see Paraujano Airico (Betoi subgroup) 161 Aonekenk, see Tehuelche Aksan´as 30–3, 552–3 Apatama 410 Akuriyo 161 Apolista 28, 39, 44, 422–3 Alacaluf, Alakaluf, Alakuluf, see Kawesqar Apolo (Quechua dialect) 200 Alacalufan 32, 553 Arabela 44, 451 Algonquian languages 523, 571 Araona 418 Allentiac xvi, 16, 42, 44, 352, 502, 508, 544–9 Arasaeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459 Alto Pativilca–Alto Mara˜n´on–Alto Huallaga Araucan´ıa Mapuche 526–30 (Quechua dialect group) 185, 193 Araucanian xvi, 14, 22–3, 28, 39–40, 43–4, Amahuaca 417–19 77, 89, 176, 508–44, 552, 590 Amarakaeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 417, 459 Araucanians 3, 9, 502–8, 582 Amazon Spanish 416 Araucanised Tehuelche 505 Amazon Spanish pidgin 602–4 Araw´a, Arawa, Araw´an, Araua (group) 28–9, Amazonas (Chachapoyas) Quechua 193, 200, 31, 33, 39–40, 44, 459 207, 213 Arawak (group) 28, 31, 33, 411, 422–30, 500 Amazonian Quechua 500 Arawakan 22, 24, 26–30, 32, 36, 39–41, 44, Amerind 26, 42–3 53, 66, 115–16, 125, 128–9, 162, 175, 353, Amerindian languages 585–6, 591, 605–9 405, 416–17, 422–30, 459, 477, 539 Amuesha, see Yanesha Arawakan languages of the Caribbean islands Ancash Quechua (dialect group) 168, 180, 116 192–3, 202–7, 224–31, 235 Arawakan languages of the Ancash–Huaylas (regional standard dialect) 116–38, 141 193, 256 Arequipa (Quechua dialect) 35, 195, 199 Andalucian Spanish 586–7, 589, 605 Arhuacan 28, 37, 44, 66–74, 76 Andaqu´ı, Andaqui, Andaki 26, 28–30, 33, Arhuaco, see Ika 37–8, 44, 48, 54, 138–41, 161 Arma and Pozo (language of) 49 Index of languages and ethnic groups 691 arribero (dialect of Guajiro) 115 Barbacoan, Barbak´oan 26, 33, 37–8, 43, 53–4, Arsario, see Damana 57, 141–51, 155, 159, 171, 392–4, 397, 437 Aru (group), see Aymaran Bar´ı 37, 44, 50, 80–1, 112, 117 Aruaco, Aruak (group), see Arhuacan Basque 326 Ash´aninca 423, 608 Baud´oriver (dialect of Ember´a) 58 Ash´eninca 423 Baure 422–3 Atacame, see Esmeralde˜no Beliche 509, 522, 530 Atacame˜no, Atacameno, Atacama 27–9, 31, Besro (dialect of Chiquitano) 478 33, 34, 42, 44, 120, 176–8, 375–85, 409, Betoi 161 539 Betoi (group) 30, 33, 37, 38, 44, 130, 161 Ataguitan 27 B´ıntukua, see Ika Atall´an 392 Bolivia–Paran´a (division of Southern Atallana 392 Arawakan) 423 Atunceta 49 Bolivian Aymara 260–1 Auca, see Huao Bolivian Quechua (dialect group) 168, 180, Auishiri, see Huao 187–8, 192–3, 195–206, 214, 221, 231, 235, Auishiri, Auixira, Auixiri, Aushiri, 270, 357, 361 see Tekiraka Bolivian Spanish 588–9 Australian languages 36 Bolona 393, 397 Awa 141 Bora 162, 164, 417, 423, 449–51 Awa Pit 26, 28, 38, 44, 53, 54, 57, 141–8, 150, Bora (group) 31–3, 44 160, 393, 397 Bora–Huitoto, Bora–Uitoto 44, 449–51 Ayacucho Quechua 168, 187, 188, 192–3, Bora–Huitotoan 32 198–202, 208–32, 235–6, 258 Bora–Muinane 449 Ayacucho rural Spanish 593 Boran, B´oran 26, 29, 33–4, 164 Ayacucho–Chanca (regional standard dialect) Bororo, Bor´oro (group) 28, 31, 33, 44 193, 256 Bororoan, Bor´oroan 29, 33–4, 477 Ayam´an, Ayom´an 129–30 Bribri 73 Aymara, Aymar´a, Aimara 2, 5, 13–14, 16–18, 20–5, 27, 29–31, 34, 38, 41, 44, 103, Cab´ecar 73 167–79, 182, 187–8, 191, 195, 214, 243, Cabiyar´ı 162, 423 259–319, 321, 328, 350–62, 365–7, 372–5, Caca, see Diaguita 377, 402, 409, 411, 436, 442, 445, 512, 517, Cahuapana (group) 28, 31–3, 44, 447–9 522–3, 529, 537–8, 549, 582, 589–91, Cahuapanan 40 607–9 Cahuarano 451 Aymara, Aimara (group) 28, 31–3, 42, Caingang (group), see Kaingangan 44 Cajamarca Quechua 167, 193, 198, 200–1, Aymara of Guaman Poma de Ayala 261 213, 221, 261, 403–4 Aymaran 5, 22, 33, 34–6, 145, 168, 170–1, Cajamarca–Ca˜naris (regional standard dialect) 173–4, 181, 199, 259–319, 375, 528 193, 256 Ayoreo, Ayor´eode 496–7, 499 Cajatambo Quechua 207 Calchaqu´ı (Diaguita subgroup) 407 Bagua 405 Caldono (dialect of P´aez) 130–2 Baniva del Guain´ıa 162, 423 Californian Penutian 43 Baniva do I¸cana 162 Callahuaya 5, 30, 33–4, 44, 175, 350–2, Baniva–Yavitero 423 356–62, 400, 411 Bantu 605 Callej´on de 197, 201–3 Bar´a 164 Camiare (Comeching´on subgroup) 502 Barasana, Barasano 164 Campa 29, 39, 411, 417, 422–3 Barbacoa, Barb´acoa (group) 30, 33, 44 Campaces 392 692 Index of languages and ethnic groups

Campan 29 Central Quechua 185 Cams´a, see Kams´a Cerro de Pasco Quechua 258 Candoshi 33, 37, 40, 44, 397, 405–6, 456–7 cesuŋun, see Huilliche Canichana 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 Chacha 167, 173, 406 Ca˜nar, Ca˜nari 29, 167, 172, 237, 321, 392–3, Chachapoya 406–7 395–7 Chachapoyas (Amazonas) Quechua 186, 194, Ca˜nar Quechua 160 198, 407 Capanahua 417–21 Chachi, see Cayapa Capay´an (Diaguita subgroup) 407, 409 Ch´acobo 418 Caquet´ıo 129 Chamacoco 496, 499 Cara, Caranqui 38, 44, 142, 172, 393–4 Cham´ı 57, 59 Carangas (Aymara dialect) 265–6, 271 Chamicuro 28–9, 39, 44, 416–17, 423 Car´aquez Bay Indians 394 Chancos (language of the) 49 Carapana 164 Chandinahua 419 Carare 114 Chan´e 422–3, 430 Carib (group) 28, 44, 173 Chango 176 Cariban 22, 24, 29, 31–3, 38, 40, 50, 57, 80, Chapacura 477 112–15, 125, 161, 405 Chapacura (group) 31, 33, 44 Caribbean (division of Northern Arawakan) Chapacura–Uanhaman 28 423 Chapacuran, Chapak´uran 29, 33, 477 Carijona 161, 406 Chapalaachi, see Cayapa Casabindo 410 Charrua (group) 28, 31–3 Cashibo 418–19 Charr´uan, Charruan 29, 33, 40, 44, 488 Cashibo–Cacataibo 418 Chayahuita 44, 447–8 Cashinahua 418–19 Chayma 112 Castilian Spanish 181, 243, 325, 398, 562, Chechehet 29, 31–2 586–7 Chetilla (Quechua dialect) 404 Catacao, Catacaos 28, 31, 33, 44, 398–400, Chibcha 16, 46–8 403 Chibcha (group) 31–3, 37, 44 Catalan 293 Chibcha–Duit 28 Catamarca and La Rioja (Quechua dialect) Chibchan, Ch´ıbchan 22, 25–6, 29–30, 32–4, 187 36–8, 40, 42, 44, 46, 49–53, 55–6, 61–112, -cat(e) (hypothetical language) 405, 407 114, 125, 130, 140, 142, 145–6, 151, 159, Cat´ıo (Choc´o) 56–7 470 Cat´ıo Chibcha 37, 44, 49, 57 Chibchan proper 28 Catuquina (group), see Katukina Chibchan–Paezan 42, 44 Cauca valley (tribes of the) 49 Chicha (historical nation) 176 Cauqui 27, 29–30, 34, 171, 259, 264–6, 306, Chilean Aymara 265–6, 365, 379 315 Chilean Diaguita 409 Caut´ın (Mapuche dialect) 513 Chilean Quechua 188 Cavine˜na 418, 422 Chilean Spanish 379, 511, 590 Cayapa 26, 38, 44, 54, 141–51, 155, 159–60, Chilidugu 508 603 Chillao (historical nation) 405 Cayuvava 28, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 Chimane 476 Cayuvavan 29 Chimila 37, 44, 48, 52, 55, 75–80, 85–6 Central Aimara, see Tupino Aimara Chim´u, Chimu 28, 31, 33, 37–8, 44, Central Arawakan 423 320 Central Peruvian Quechua 17, 191, 286, 301, Chim´uan 33 314–15, 318, 424 Chinchaisuyo 181 Central Peruvian Spanish 595 Chinese 585 Index of languages and ethnic groups 693

Chipaya xv, 33, 38–9, 43, 175, 362–75, 379, Colima (Ecuador) 392 420 Colla (historical nation) 234, 350 Chiquitano, Chikitano, Chiquita, Chiquito Collavino Aimara 170 28–9, 31, 33, 34, 44, 64, 416, 422, 477–88, Collavino Quechua 170, 187 609 Colombian Chibchan 37, 55 Chiriguano 8, 14, 422, 430 Colombian Quechua 208 Chiriguano–Ava 430–1 Colombian Spanish 61, 588 Chiriguano–Guaran´ı 499 colonial Cuzco Quechua 213, 228 Chiriguano–Tapyi 430–1 Colorado, see Tsafiki Chirino 29, 406 Colorado–Cayapa 28 Chitarero 52 Comeching´on 502 Choc´o, Choco, Chok´o(group) 28–9, 31–3, 44, Comechingones 502 57 Compi, La Paz (Aymara dialect) 275 Chocoan 38, 50, 54, 56–61, 65, 111, Concepci´on (Quechua dialect) 201–5 117 Conibo 418–19, 500 Chol´on xvi, 20, 21, 97, 173, 352, 398, 405, Conima, Huancan´e(Aymara dialect) 266 407, 416, 456, 460–75, 499 Copall´en 30–2, 406–7 Cholona (group) 31, 33, 37, 44 Copiap´ovalley (Indians of the) 409 Chol´onan 33 Coquimbo valley (Indians of the) 409 Cholones 398 Coto, see Orej´on Chon (group) 29, 31–3, 36, 39, 41, 44, 505 Cotopaxi (Ecuadorian Quechua dialect) 204 Chonan 555–64, 581–2 Covendo Moset´en 476 Chongos Bajo (Quechua dialect) 202, 217 Cuaiquer, see Awa Pit Chono (Chile) 508, 550, 552–4, 556–8, Cubeo 164 564–5, 580 Cueva 3, 57, 62 Chono (Ecuador) 392 Cuiba 162 Chorote 493–5 Cuica 124–9 Chubut (Mapuche dialect) 505 Cuitlatec 42 Chucuito (Aymara dialect) 265, 272 Cujare˜no 418 Chulup´ı, Chulup´ı–Ashlushlay 493–4, 499 Culina 459 Chupaca (Quechua dialect) 202 Culli, Culle 25, 28, 31, 33, 44, 161, 172–3, Churumata 410 398, 401–5, 461 Ciaman 49 Cullian 29 coastal dialect of Quechua 182, 185, 187, 191, Cumanagoto 112 198, 207, 261 Cuna 26, 37, 48–50, 55–6, 61–6, 79, 85–6, Cobar´ıa (dialect of Tunebo) 109–10 111 Cocama 164, 419, 431–2 Cuna (group) 44 Cocamilla 431 Cuna–Cueva 28 Cochabamba Quechua 43, 193, 236 Cundinamarcan Chibchan 37 Cochabamba Spanish 601 Curripaco 162, 423 Coche, see Kams´a Cuzco (alternative name for the Quechua Cochinoca 410 dialect of Santiago del Estero) 180 Coconucan 26, 29, 38, 141–2 Cuzco Quechua 17, 20, 35, 167, 168, Coconuco 141 180–3, 187–8, 191–206, 208–31, 235–6, Coconuco (group) 9, 30 249–54, 256–7, 270, 292, 352, 357–8, 360, Cof´an, Cofan 26, 28–9, 31, 33, 37, 42, 44, 50, 361 141, 161, 454 Cuzco–Bolivian (Quechua dialect group) Col´an, Colan 28, 398–400, 403 195 Coli (historical nation) 175, 350 Cuzco–Collao (regional Quechua standard Colima (Colombia) 38, 48, 114–15 dialect) 193 694 Index of languages and ethnic groups

Damana 44, 50, 55, 66–74, 117 General Language of the Inca 179, 186 -den (hypothetical language) 404 Gennaken, see G¨un¨una K¨une Desano 164 German 16, 323, 378 Diaguita, Diaguit 20, 27, 30–2, 177–8, 376, Gorgotoqui, Gorgotoki 30–3 380, 407–9 Grau, Apurimac (Quechua dialect) 199 Dobocub´ı, see Bar´ı Guach´ı29 Dorasquean 37 Guachian 29 Duit 23, 37, 44, 46, 50, 81–2, 85 Guahibo, see Sikuani Duitama (language of) 82 Guahibo (group) 32–3, 44 Guahibo–Pamigua 28 Easter Island language 41 Guahiboan 29–30, 33, 162 Eastern Apurimac (Quechua dialect) 200 Guaicuru (group) 31–3, 44 Eastern Tucanoan 163–4 Guaicuruan 14, 29, 33, 40–1, 178, 386, Eastern Yahgan 580 488–93, 495 Ecuadorian Amazonian Quechua 186, 451 Guaiteca, see Chono (Chile) Ecuadorian Coastal Spanish 605 Guajiro xvi, 53–4, 115–24, 162, 423 Ecuadorian Highland Quechua 131, 149, 172, Gualaquiza (Shuar dialect) 438 186, 195–204, 208–31 Guallatire, northern Chile (Aymara dialect) Ecuadorian Highland Spanish 605 266 Ecuadorian Quechua 168, 192–3, 207, 218, Guamaca, see Damana 235, 237–42, 289, 395, 594, 596–8 Guambiano 26, 38, 43–4, 54–5, 57, 131, Ecuadorian Spanish 588, 594, 598–600 141–50 Ele (Betoi subgroup) 161 Guamo 31, 33, 44, 163 Ember´a 50, 54–60, 62 Guan´a 423 English 16, 66, 324, 360, 516, 567–70, 574–8, Guanaca 138, 142 582, 591 Guanano 164 Equatorial 28, 42, 44 Guanca (historical nation), see Huanca Equatorial–Tucanoan 42, 44 Guane 52 Eseejja 417–18 Guaque, see Carijona Eskimo–Aleut 42 Guaran´ı 24, 351, 431, 480, 500, 608 Esmeralde˜no, Esmeralda, Ezmeralda 28–30, Guarayo 430–2 33–4, 42, 44, 54, 155–61, 172 Guat´o, Guato 28–9, 31, 33–4, 44 Ette Ennaka, see Chimila Guatuso 26, 86 Ette Taara, see Chimila Guayabero 55, 162, 164 European languages 586 Guaycur´u–Charruan 32 Guaycuru–Opaie 28 Ferrenafe ˜ (Quechua dialect) 186, 189, 193, G¨un¨una K¨une 5, 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 505, 550, 198, 200, 207, 220–1 554 Fiscara (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 G¨un¨una Yajich 554–8, 561–4, 581–2 Fisherman’s language 320 French 103 Hacaritama 116 Fuegian languages (languages of Tierra del hahuasimi 174, 261 Fuego) xvii, 5, 21, 31, 41, 550–82 Haki (group), see Aymaran Fuegians 3, 550 Harakmbut, Har´akmbut 2, 28, 31–3, 39, 43–4, 163, 422, 459–60 Galibi 113 Haush 41, 550, 554, 556, 580 Gay´on 129 Hawaiian 41 Ge (group) 28–9, 32–4, 163 Henia (Comeching´on subgroup) 502 Ge–Kaingan 44 Het, see Chechehet Ge–Pano–Carib 28, 42, 44 Hianacoto, see Carijona Index of languages and ethnic groups 695

Hibito, Hivito 44, 173, 398, 407, 460–2 Imbabura Quechua 193, 199, 204, 393 Hibito–Chol´on 28–9, 407 Inca 16 Highland Jivaroans 418 Inca (general) language 182, 191–2, 198 Hirah´aran, see Jirajaran Incas (secret language of the) 178 Hitn¨u 162 Inga, Ingano (Colombian Quechua dialect) 53, H´ıvaro (group), see Jivaroan 151, 179–80, 186, 193, 202 Hivito, Hivitos, see Hibito ingasimi ˇ 180 Hokan 28, 34, 36, 42, 44, 61 I˜napari 353, 423 Hokan–Siouan 37 Iquito 44, 451–2 Hongote 29 Irapa (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Huachipaeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459 Iroka (dialect of Yukpa) 112 Hualf´ın (Diaguita subgroup) 407 Irra (language of) 49 Huallaga (Quechua dialect) 189 Isconahua 418 Huamachuco (language of) 401 Italian 24, 380 Huambisa 432–3 Itene 477 Huanca (Quechua dialect group) 179, 181, Itonama 28–9, 31–3, 44, 475–6 188, 192–3, 196, 201–6, 210–31, 236, Itucale, see Urarina 256–8, 261, 595 Itucale–Sabela 44 Huancan´e(Aymara dialect) 283 Izoce˜no 430–1 Huancavilca 392–3 Huancayo (Quechua dialect) 197, 202–5, 208 Jabut´ıan 376 Huangascar–Topar´a (Quechua dialect group) Japanese 585 185 Japreria 52, 112–13 H´uanuco Quechua (Quechua dialect group) Jaqaru 27, 34, 44, 171, 259–60, 264–70, 192–3, 200–1, 217–31, 257, 424 275–6, 281, 287, 290, 293, 295, 300–19, Huao, Huaorani 28, 30–3, 44, 454–6 352 Huarayo, see Eseejja Jaqi (group), see Aymaran Huaraz (Quechua dialect) 207 jaqi aru, see Aymara Huari 29 Jaruro, see Ya r uro Huarochir´ı manuscript (Quechua dialect of Jauja (Quechua dialect) 197, 201–5 the) 192, 198, 231, 318 Jauja–Huanca (Quechua dialect group) 185 Huarpe (group) 28, 31, 33 Je (group), see Ge Huarpean 29, 42, 502–5, 508, 544, 548 Jebero 44, 447–9 Huasco valley (Indians of the) 409 Jebero–Jivaroan 32 Huaylas–Conchucos (Quechua dialect group) J´ıbaro, Jibaro (group), see Jivaroan 185 Jibaro–Kandoshi, see J´ıvaro–Candoshi Huilliche 509–10, 514, 516–17, 526, 530 Jicaque 37 Huitoto 56, 162, 164, 423, 449–50, 500 Jirajara 129 Huitoto–Bora–Z´aparo 37 Jirajara, Jirajira (group) 28, 31, 33, 44, 129 Huitoto Muinane 449 Jirajaran 29, 33, 37, 52, 129–30 Huitoto–Ocaina 449 Jirara (Betoi subgroup) 130, 161 Huitotoan 26, 28–9, 31–4, 162, 164 jitano 82 Humahuaca 27, 30–2, 177, 410 Jitirijiti 49, 53 Hupda 163 J´ıvaro, see Shuar J´ıvaro–Cahuapana, Jivaroan–Cahuapanan 29 Iberian dialects (of Spanish) 586–7 J´ıvaro–Candoshi 28, 40, 42, 44 Idabaez 31–2, 56 Jivaroan 31–3, 40, 44, 172–3, 396–7, 406, Ignaciano 422, 423 416, 432–47, 457 Ika 50, 55, 66–74, 76, 93 Jopoqueri (Aymara dialect) 293 Ilinga 401 Jor´a 430–1 696 Index of languages and ethnic groups

Jujuy (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 La Paz Spanish 591, 600–1 Juli (Aymara dialect) 293 Lache 52 Jun´ın (Quechua dialect group) 281, 424 Lamista Quechua 186 Jun´ın–Huanca (regional Quechua standard languages of Andean tribes 30 dialect) 193 languages of the Amazonian lowlands Jur´ı 33, 178 xvii languages of the Cauca valley 49–50 Kach´a, see Urarina languages of the Gran Chaco 488–99 Kadiweu 488 languages of the Magdalena valley 50 Kagaba, K´aggaba, see Kogui languages of Paleo–American tribes 30 Kahuapana (group), see Cahuapana languages of the Sierra Nevada the Santa Kahuapana–Zaparo 44 Marta, see Arhuacan Kaingan, Kaing´an (group) 31–3, 44 languages of Tropical Forest tribes 30 Kaingang 163 languages of the Upper Magdalena region Kaingangan 28–9 138–41 Kak´an, see Diaguita Lapachu, see Apolista Kakua 163 Laraos (Quechua dialect) 186 kamnˇc. a´, see Kams´a Latin 16, 24, 344, 510 Kams´a 28–30, 33, 37–8, 44, 53–4, 56, 151–5, Latin American Spanish 586–8 161 Lebanese Arabic 585 Kandoshi, see Candoshi Leco, Leko 21, 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 Kanichana, see Canichana Lenca 37, 50 Kankuamo, Kanku´ı 50, 67 Lengua 498 Kanoˆe 29, 34, 376 Lengua (group) 31, 33, 44 Kapishana, Kapishan´a, see Kanoˆe lengua general (del Inga) 179, 182 Karaib (group), see Cariban lengua del Inga 53, 401 K´ariban, see Cariban lengua linga 53 Kariri–Tupi 44 lengua de los Llanos 392 Katak´aoan 33–4 lengua pescadora 320 Katio, see Cat´ıo Chibcha lengua yunga pescadora 320 Katukina (group) 29, 39, 43, 459 Lengua–Mascoy 29, 40, 488, 497–9 Kaueskar, see Chono (Chile) Letuama, see Tanimuca–Retuar˜a Kawap´anan, see Cahuapana lican antai, see Atacame˜no Kawesqar, Kaw´eskar 28–33, 41, 44, 550, Lili 49 552–4, 556–8, 564–7, 580–2 Lima standard Spanish 593 Kayuvava, see Cayuvava Limar´ıvalley (Indians of the) 409 Kechua (group), see Quechua Lincha (Quechua dialect) 186, 189 Kechumaran, see Quechumaran Linga, see Ilinga Kitemoca 477 L´ıpez (historical nation) 176 Kof´an, see Cof´an llapuni 589 Kogui 44, 50, 55–6, 66–74, 86 Llata (Quechua dialect) 193 Kolyawaya, see Callahuaya Lokono 116–17 kot-su˜n, see Uru Lolaca (Betoi subgroup) 161 kougian, see Kogui Lomer´ıo (dialect of Chiquitano) 478 Kugapakori 423 Louisiana French 591 Kulyi, see Culli Low German 416 Kunza, Kunsa, see Atacame˜no Lule 28–34, 44, 177–8, 380, 385–91 Lulean 31–2 La Paz (Aymara dialect) 265–6, 270–7, Lule–Tonocot´e 385 283–4, 286, 289, 293 Lule–Vilela 41, 44, 386, 488 Index of languages and ethnic groups 697

Lupaca (historical nation, Aymara dialect) Marocasero, see Damana 264, 266 Mascoy (group) 28 Mascoyan, Mask´oian 33, 497–9 Macaguane, see Hitn¨u Mashco 33 machaj juyay, see Callahuaya Mashub´ı 29, 376 Machiguenga 29, 39, 411, 417, 422–3 Mastanahua 419 Macoita (dialect of Yukpa) 112–14 Mataco 493–4 Macro-Arawakan 29, 44 Mataco (group) 28, 31, 33, 44, 430 Macro-Carib 28, 29, 42, 44 Mataco–Guaicuru 44 Macro-Chibchan 28, 32, 36–8, 42 Matacoan, Mat´akoan 14, 29, 33, 40–1, 386, Macro-Ge, Macro-Jˆe 28, 32, 34, 39–40, 42, 44 391, 488, 493–5 Macro-Hokan 30 Mataguayan, see Matacoan Macro-Mayan 29, 32 Matanau´ı29 Macro-Pano–Tacanan 32 Mayan 31–2, 38–9, 321, 329, 364 Macro-Panoan 28, 42, 44 Mayna 28–31, 33, 40, 44, 447, 456 Macro-Penutian 38 Mayo 418 Macro-Quechuan 29 Mayoruna 418–19 Macro-Tucanoan 28, 42, 44 Media Lengua 5, 602–3 Macu (Venezuelan) 29 Mennonite German 585 Macuan 29 Millcayac 16, 44, 502, 544 Macuna 164 Mnka (dialect of Huitoto) 164, 449 Made´an (Quechua dialect) 186 Mira˜na 164, 449 Madi (group), see Araw´a Mirrip´u (dialect of Timote) 125 Magdalena valley (tribes of the) 48 Misumalpa (group) 30, 33–4, 37, 50 Magdalena valley Cariban 112–15 Mobima, see Movima Maipuran 24, 39, 44, 422 Mocana 52 Maipure 162, 423 Mochica xvi, xvii, 2, 16, 22–3, 28–9, 37–8, Maip´urean 33 61, 84, 120, 172–3, 319–50, 351–2, 392, Majigua 161 397–8, 403, 513 Mak´a 493, 495, 499 Mocoa, see Kams´a Mak´u(group) 31, 33, 163 Mocov´ı 488–9, 493 Mak´u–Puinave, Mac´u–Puinave 29, 163 Moguex 142 Mak´uan 163 Mojo 16, 411, 422–3 Malacato 172, 393, 396 Moluche, see Ngoluche (Mapuche subgroup) Malayo, see Damana Mor´e 477 Malibu (group) 44 Morocomarca, northern Potos´ı(Aymara Malib´u52 dialect) 283, 287, 310 Mandarin Chinese 147 Morocosi, see Mojo 16 Manekenkn, see Haush Morunahua 418 Manta 392 Mosca, see Muisca Mapocho, Mapuchu (Santiago dialect of Moset´en, Moseten, Mosetene 28–9, 31–3, 39, Araucanian) 508–9, 517–18, 526–7, 44, 375, 476 528–30, 533, 537 Moset´en–Chimane 475–6 Mapuche xvi, 2–3, 5, 9, 14, 16, 21, 28, 31, Motilon, see Bar´ı 33, 38, 40–1, 103, 123, 171, 321, 470, Motilones 38, 80, 112 500, 505–44, 551, 552, 563, 565, 580–2, Movima 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 608 Muchic, Muchik 172, 320 Mapuchean 29 Mucuch´ı (dialect of Timote) 125–8 Mapudungu, Mapudungun, see Mapuche Muellamu´es 393 Marinahua 419 Muinane 164 698 Index of languages and ethnic groups

Muisca xvi, 3, 18, 23, 37, 46, 50, 52, 54–5, Omagua 24, 417–18, 431 81–109, 111–12, 352, 397 Omaguaca, see Humahuaca Munchique (dialect of P´aez) 130–1 Omasuyos (Aymara dialect) 275 Muniche, Munichi 28, 30–1, 33, 44, 456, 500 Omurano, see Mayna Mura–Pirah´a29 Ona, see Selknam Muran 29 Op´on 114 Murato (Candoshi) 31, 33, 37, 457 Op´on–Carare 38, 53, 112, 114–15 Murato (Uru–Chipaya) 362 Orej´on 453 Murui (dialect of Huitoto) 164, 417, 449 Oristin´e 386 Mut´us 125 Osa (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 muysc cubun, see Muisca Otavalo Quechua 445 Muzo 38, 48, 114–15 Ot´ı29 Otomac, Otomaco (group) 31, 33, 44, 163 Na–Dene 42 Otomaco–Taparita 28 Nahua 418 Otom´akoan 33 Nambikwara (group) 29, 37 Otuque 477 Napeca 477 Napip´ıriver (dialect of Ember´a) 59 Pacabueyes 52 Nasa, see P´aez Pacaguara 418 Nasa Yuwe, see P´aez Pacaraos (Quechua dialect) 186, 189–90, Neuqu´en (Mapuche dialect) 516 193, 197–229, 234–5, 242–50, 261, 279, New World Spanish 586 325 Ngoluche (Mapuche subgroup) 509 Paccho (Quechua dialect) 198–9 Npode (dialect of Huitoto) 164, 449 Paccioca (Diaguita subgroup) 407 Nivacl´e, see Chulup´ı Pachitea (Quechua dialect) 202 Noctenes (dialecto of Mataco) 493 P´aesan 33 Nonuya 164 Paez (group) 33, 44 North Amazon (division of Northern P´aez 9, 26, 30, 38, 48, 50, 54–5, 57, 125, Arawakan) 423 130–8, 140–2, 395, 500 North Barasana 164 Paez–Coconuco 28 Northern Bolivian Quechua 35, 200, 357 Paezan 28–9, 38, 42, 44 Northern Amerind 44 Paiconeca 477 Northern Andean 44 Palenquero 604 Northern Arawakan 423 Paleo–Chibchan 159 Northern Aymara 265 Palta 172, 393, 396–7 Northern Jun´ın (Quechua dialect group) 189, Pamigua 161 194, 201–6, 210–33, 237, 257 Pampa, see G¨un¨una K¨une Northwest-Coast languages 571 Panatagua 422 Nuclear Chibchan 44 Panche 38, 48, 53, 114–15 Nuclear Paezan 44 Paniquita 142 Nukak 163 Paniquit´a (dialect of P´aez) 130 nunasimi ˇ 179 Paniquitan 26 Nutabe 37, 44, 49 Pano (group) 31–3, 411, 417–18 Pano–Tacana, Pano–Tacanan 29, 31, 39, 44, Ocaina 164, 449 418–22, 477 Ochosuma, see Uru Panoan, P´anoan 33–4, 39–40, 44, 261, Ocloya (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 418–21, 447 Ofai´e–Xavante 29 Pant´agora 38, 48, 114 Old Cat´ıo, see Cat´ıo Chibcha Panzaleo 393–5, 397 Olmos (language of) 320, 400 Papiamentu 595 Index of languages and ethnic groups 699

Paraujano 53, 115–16, 118, 423 Proto-Barbacoan 57 Parecis–Saraveca (division of Central Proto-Chibchan 37, 73, 80 Arawakan) 423 Proto-Chocoan 57–8 Pariri (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Proto-Colombian Chibchan 96 Parquenahua 418 Proto-Ember´a58 Pasco (Quechua dialect group) 281, 424 Proto-Matacoan 495 Pastaza (Quechua dialect) 187, 193 Proto-Quechumaran 195 Pasto 38, 53, 142, 151, 392–4, 397 Proto-Quechua(n) 35, 181, 187–8, 190, 192, Patagon (group), see Chon 194–204, 206–7, 213, 244, 267 Patag´on, Patag´on de Perico 173, 405, Proto-Yukpa 113 554–6 Pucapacuri, see Kugapakori Patag´on de Bagua, see Bagua Puelche, see G¨un¨una K¨une Patagonian languages 5, 21, 31, 41, 578 Puinave 163 Paunaca 422, 477 Puinave (group) 28, 44 Pauserna–Guarasugw´e 430–1 Puin´avean 33 Paya 37, 73 Pular (Diaguita subgroup) 407 Paya–Chibchan 37 Pum´e, see Ya r uro Peba–Yagua 458 Pun´a (language of) 155 Peban 28 Puno (Aymara dialect) 269 Pehuenche (independent group) 505 Puno Bay Uru 363 Pehuenche (Mapuche dialect) 505, 509 Puno Quechua 35, 187, 199, 201–2, 292, 357 peibu, see Kogui Puquina, Pukina xv, xvi, 5, 26, 30–4, 36, 39, peninsular Spanish 586–9 43–4, 167, 175–6, 178, 263, 350–62, 366, Peruvian Andean Spanish 589, 592 375, 382 Peruvian Aymara 260–1 Purmamarca (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 Peruvian Spanish 589, 593, 604 Puruh´a, Puruguay 29, 167, 172, 321, 392–3, Piapoco 116, 162, 423 395–6 Piaroa 162 Piaroa (group) 31, 33, 44 Qawasqar, see Kawesqar Pichincha (Quechua dialect) 199 Quechua xvi, 2–3, 5–6, 12–25, 27, 31–6, 38, Picoy (Quechua dialect) 201 41, 53, 103, 123, 129–30, 139, 142, 145–6, Picunche (Mapuche dialect) 509–10, 149–51, 160, 165–320, 328, 344, 351–61, 516 365–6, 370–5, 377–85, 393–6, 398, 400–6, Pijao 38, 48, 53, 114–15, 138, 141 409, 411–16, 424, 430, 443, 446, 452, 464, Pilag´a 488–9 465–8, 471, 499, 506, 512, 517, 522–3, Pioj´e, see Secoya 527–8, 534, 537–8, 539, 585, 589–603, 605, Piratapuyo 164 607–8 Piro 39, 411, 417, 422–3 Quechua (group) 22, 28, 42, 44 Piro–Apurin˜a 423 Quechua (historical nation) 179 Pisabo 418 Quechua A 185 Pisamira 164 Quechua B 185 Piura (languages of) 403 Quechua I 185–6, 188–91, 197–207, 210–37, Plains Indians 556 243, 258, 278, 281, 429, 506 Polynesian languages 41 Quechua II 185–91, 212–32, 234–6, 243, Portuguese 181 270 Pre-Andine subgroup of Arawakan 22, 39 Quechua IIA 186–91, 198 Pre-Quechuan languages of highland Ecuador Quechua IIB 186–91, 196–207, 213–31, 25, 38, 172, 195, 391–7 235–6, 243 Proto-Arawakan 423–6 Quechua IIC 186–91, 195–206, 212–32, Proto-Aymaran 35, 171, 263, 265–7, 287 234–6, 293 700 Index of languages and ethnic groups

Quechua III 186 San Miguel (dialect of Chiquitano) 478 Quechua(n) dialects 34–5, 160, 168, 177, San Pedro de Cajas (Quechua dialect) 193, 179–81, 183–91, 256, 305 197, 225, 229, 237 Quechua standard language (lengua general) Sanaviron, Sanavir´on 31–2, 502 182–3 Sanavirones 502 Quechuan 5, 29, 34–6, 53, 168–71, 179–263, Sanj´a, Sank´a, see Damana 318 Santa Ana Moset´en 476 Quechumaran 27, 32, 34–6 Santiago dialect of Araucanian, see Mapocho Querand´ı 505 Santiago de Chuco (dialect of Spanish) 403–4 Quichua 12–13, 168, 177 Santiago del Estero Quechua, Santiague˜no Quichua (historical nation) 179 Quechua 177, 187–8, 193, 197, 202–4, 221, quichua unificado 607 231, 258, 378, 380, 386, 387, 409 Quijos 394 S´aparoan, see Zaparoan Quillacinga 53, 151, 392 Sapiteri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459 Quilme (Diaguita subgroup) 407–8 Saraguro Indians 6, 395 Quimbaya 3, 57 Saraveca 423, 477 Quimbaya, Carrapa, Picara and Paucura Sebondoy, see Kams´a (language of the) 49 Sec (group) 29 Quind´ıo (language of the) 49 Sechura, Sec 25, 28, 31, 33–4, 44, 172, 320, Quingnam 173, 320, 401 398–400 Secoya 453 Rabona 393, 397 Sek 400 Ranqueles 505, 507 Selknam 28, 36, 41, 44, 550, 554, 556–7, Ranquelino, Ranquel (Mapuche dialect) 558–64, 571, 580–1 510–11, 514, 516, 528 Setebo 419 Remo 419 Shaparu (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Res´ıgaro 39, 44, 162, 423 Shapra, see Candoshi Reyesano 418 Sharanahua 418 R´ıo Negro (Mapuche dialect) 516 Shipibo 500 Rionegrino (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Shipibo–Conibo 417, 419 Roraima (languages of) 406 Shipibo–Conibo–Shetebo 418–19 Rucachoroy, Neuqu´en (Mapuche dialect) Shuar 13, 172, 397, 416, 418, 432–47, 514 499–500, 603, 609 Rumanian 217 Shuar pidgin 433 runa simi 130, 179, 259 Sibundoy, see Kams´a Russian 231 sign languages 416, 418 Sikuani 55, 162, 164 Sabela, see Huao Simacu, see Urarina Sacata 405 Sindagua 53 Saija 57–60 S´ınsiga 110 Salasaca (Quechua dialect) 204, 237–42 Sin´u 50, 57 Saliba, S´aliba 44, 162–3 Siona 163, 453 Saliban, S´alivan 28, 29, 33, 162 Siriano 164 Salinas de Garci Mendoza (Aymara dialect) Sirion´o 430–1 266 Sitajara, Tacna (Aymara dialect) 281, 283–4, Samb´u57 288, 307 Sam´ukoan, see Zamucoan Situfa (Betoi subgroup) 161 San Javier (dialect of Chiquitano) 478 Slavic languages 231 San Mart´ın (regional Quechua standard Sokorpa (dialect of Yukpa) 112 dialect) 193, 203, 236, 256 Sonchon (group) 29 Index of languages and ethnic groups 701

Sora (historical nation) 178 t´eiˇzua (ceremonial language) 67 South American Spanish 587–8 Tekiraka 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 456 South Bolivian Quechua 35 Temuco, Caut´ın (Mapuche dialect) 516 Southern Andean 44 Tena (Quechua dialect) 242 Southern Aimara, see Collavino Aimara T´erraba 73 Southern Arawakan 423 terruna shayama (ceremonial language) 67 Southern Aymara 265 Tetet´e 453 Southern Barbacoan 149 Teushen 41, 550, 554, 556, 581 Southern Peruvian Quechua 253 Ticuna, Tikuna 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 55, 164, 458 Southern Quechua I 250 Ticuna–Yuri 44 Spanish 3–6, 11–13, 24, 53, 59, 66–7, 74, Tiliar (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 82–7, 116–18, 128–9, 131, 139, 155, 170, Timan´a 138 173, 179, 182–3, 197, 216–17, 256, 258–9, Timote 124–9, 130 262, 267, 293, 324–5, 344, 351, 368, Timote (group) 28–9, 31, 33, 37, 44 378–81, 386–7, 393–6, 398, 400–4, 418, Timote–Cuica xvi, 52, 124–30 452, 471, 478, 493, 500, 510–11, 544–5, Tim´otean 33 576, 581, 585–605 Timucua 29, 42 Spanish of northwestern Argentina 589, 595–6 Tinigua 161–2 Subtiaba 37 Tinigua (group) 31, 33, 44 Swedish 217 Tiniguan, Tin´ıwan 29, 33 Toba 40, 488–93, 499, 608 Ta–Arawak 116 Tonocot´e 177–8, 385–6, 408 Tabancale 29–32, 406 Toquistin´e 386 Tacana 418, 500 Torib´ıo (dialect of P´aez) 130–3 Tacana (group) 31–3, 411 Toromona 418 Tacana–Pano 28 Totor´o 38, 54, 141 Tacanan, Tak´anan 26, 33–4, 36, 39, 44, 171, Toyeri, see Harakmbut 357, 418–19 Toyoeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459 Tacna (Aymara dialect) 271 Trinitario 422–3 Ta´ıno 116 Trio 115, 161 Tairona 48, 52, 67 Trumai 29 Taiwano 164 Tsachila 141 Talamancan 26, 73 Tsafiki 26, 38, 44, 54, 141–51, 159–60, 225, Tall´an 25, 34, 172, 179, 393, 398–400 228, 392, 394 Tamanaco 112 Tshon (group), see Chon, Chonan Tanimuca 164 Tucano 164 Tanimuca–Retuar˜a 164 Tucano (group) 28, 31, 33, 37, 44 Tapiet´e 418, 430–1, 499 Tucanoan, Tuk´anoan 29, 33, 55, 141, 162–4, Tapo (Quechua dialect) 225 453 Tarascan 29, 34, 42 Tucuna, see Ticuna Tarata (Aymara dialect) 265–6 Tule, see Cuna Tariana 162, 164, 423 Tunebo 37, 44, 52, 85, 109–12 Tarma (Quechua dialect) 192–4, 197–206, Tunebo (group) 28, 52, 85, 87, 109–10, 112, 210–33, 235–6, 258 161 Tatuyo 164 Tupi, Tup´ı(group) 22, 28–9, 31, 33, 40, 44, Taushiro 40, 456 432 Tegr´ıa (dialect of Tunebo) 109–10 Tupi–Guaran´ı 14, 24, 26–7, 99, 422, 430–2, Tehuelche 28, 36, 41, 505, 510, 550, 552, 434, 477, 488 554–6, 558, 563–4, 580–4 Tup´ıan 33, 419, 432 Tehues, see Teushen Tupinamb´a 432 702 Index of languages and ethnic groups

Tupino Aimara 170 Xiroa 393, 397 Turkish 34 Xoroca 396, 406 Tuyuca 164 Tuyuneri, see Harakmbut Yacampis (Diaguita subgroup) 409 Yagua 164, 417, 458 Uchumataqu, see Uru Yagua (group) 31, 33, 44 Uitoto (group), see Huitotoan Yaguan 28–9, 33–4 Umaua, see Carijona Yahgan, Yagan 28, 31, 33, 41, 44, 550, 553–4, Upper And´agueda (Ember´a Cham´ı dialect) 556–8, 567–82 59 Yalc´on 48, 138 Urarina 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 457–8, 500 Yamana, Y´amana, see Yahgan 554, 556 Uro (group) 31–3, 44 Yamanan 29 Uru, Uro 28, 36, 38–9, 176, 259, 362–3, Yameo 458, 500 366–7, 370, 375 Yaminahua 418 Uru ofChimu 175, 363 Yanahuanca (Quechua dialect) 201 Uru of Iru Itu (Iruitu) 175, 363 Yanesha 5, 22, 28–9, 39, 44, 397, 416–17, Uruan, see Uru–Chipaya 422–30, 447, 499–500 Uru–Chipaya 26, 29, 31, 38–9, 43, 175–6, yangasimi ˇ 180 259, 321, 357, 362–75 Yanomama, Yanoama (group) 32, 37 Uruquilla 175–6, 362 Yanomaman 40 Uw Cuwa, see Tunebo Ya ru (Quechua dialect group) 185, 193 Uwa, Uwa, see Tunebo Ya r uro 28–30, 33–4, 42, 44, 159, 163 Yauyos (dialect group) 186, 192, 200, 205, 214 Viakshi (dialect of Yukpa) 112 Yavitero 162, 423 Vilela 28–9, 31–4, 44, 178, 386–7, 391 Y´awan, see Yaguan Vi˜nac (Quechua dialect) 186 Ysistin´e 386 Vulgar Latin 589 Yuco, see Yukpa Yucuna 162, 423 Wah´ıvoan, see Guahiboan Yuhupde, see Hupda Waikur´uan, see Guaicuruan Yukpa 38, 52, 80, 112–15 Wamo, see Guamo Yunga, Yunca 28, 38, 172, 320, 398 Warao 32, 37 Yuqui 430–1 Warpe(group), see Huarpe Yuracar´e, Yuracare, Yurakare, Yurucare 28–9, Wasama (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 31–3, 39, 44, 475–7 Waunana 54, 56–9 Yur´ı, Yuri 28, 31, 33, 44, 164 Wayuunaiki, see Guajiro Yur´ıan 29 Weenhayek, see Mataco Yur umangu´ı, Yurumangui, Yurimangui, West Patagonian Canoe Indians 552 Yurimangi 28–9, 31, 33, 36–7, 41–2, 44, Western Arawakan 423 54, 60–1, 161 Western Tucanoan 163 Yur ut´ı 164 Wichi, see Mataco Wintu 43 Zamuco 477, 496 Witotoan, Wit´otoan, see Huitotoan Zamuco (group) 28, 31, 33, 44 Wiwa, see Damana Zamucoan 29, 33, 488, 496–7, 499 Z´aparo 451–3 Xauxa (historical nation) 181 Z´aparo, Zaparo (group) 31, 33, 44, 416, 418 Xibito-Cholon, see Hibito-Chol´on Zaparoan 26, 28–9, 33–4, 172, 451–3, 456, Xidehara, see Jirajara 458 Xinca 37 Zuni 29 SUBJECT INDEX

ablative 189, 215, 273, 277, 303, 374, 428, alienable/inalienable distinction 119, 492, 440, 469 495, 499 ablativus absolutus 251 allative 69, 100, 214–15, 274–328, 356, 385, ablaut 328 428, 440, 470 abolition of Quechua in the official domain allophonic lowering of high vowels 195, 257, 183, 255 361, 366 absolute (transitive without an object) 485–6 allophonic variation 62, 196 abstract terms 234 altiplano 6–7, 38, 165, 171, 175–6, 296, 350, Abya-Yala, organisation 13 362 Academia de la Lengua Quechua 181 Alto Per´u 171 accent 76, 153, 568 Alto Pur´us (upper Pur´us valley) 459 Aconcagua river 502 alveolar affricate 265, 302, 386 active (as opposed to passive) 485–6 Amantan´ı, island 350 active participle 547 Amazon, river and region 5, 6, 161, 173, 431, active–stative distinction 122, 134–5, 489, 499, 603 495, 499 The American Race (Brinton) 25 accusative 71–2, 145, 213, 224, 303–4, Amerindian contact vernaculars 5 360 Amerindian grammatical patterns 43, 482 adcorporeal movement 490 Ampudia, Juan de (conquistador) 138 adjectives, syntactic behaviour of 208, 335, analytic conjugation 122–3 336, 353, 380, 390, 409, 419, 444, 449, anaphoric 537 457, 471, 481, 562 Ancoaqui, indigenous community 363 adstratum 195 Andahuaylillas, town 350 African–Amerindian relations in Pacific Andamarca, Quechua-speaking community Ecuador 155 258 Africanisms 5, 588, 604 Andean civilisation 2, 35, 165–7 agent (of a passive construction) 329, 335, Andean Cordilleras 6, 168 368, 483 Andean millenarism 1 agent disambiguator 470 animal fables 192 agentive nominalisation 227, 276, 288, 311, antecedent 17, 213, 430 335–6, 339–40, 355, 372, 527–8 anticompletive 251 59, 64, 207, 267, 423, 463, 476, Antilles 586 545, 564, 609 Antofagasta, town and region 408 agreement/concord 125, 370, 496, 563 A˜nasco, Pedro de (conquistador) 48, 138 agricultural terraces 2, 124 Anthropos 56 agriculture 2, 10, 21, 175, 502 apico-alveolar fricative 325–6, 365, 562 Ais´en, region 554 applicative 339, 474, 476–7 704 Subject index aquatic lifestyle (of the Uru) 259, 362 Bavarian mission 511, 512 La Araucana 506 behetr´ıas 48 Araucan´ıa 14, 507–10 Belalc´azar (or Benalca¸car, Benalcazar), Araucanian-speaking mixed groups 505 Sebasti´an de (conquistador)9,53, 61 Araucanian Sphere 5, 177, 502–8 Bel´en de los Andaqu´ıes, settlement 139 Araucaria pine 505 Benedictines 193 Arauco, town and region 506, 510, 516 benefactive 278, 289, 303, 333, 356, 374, 428, archaeological horizons 7 468–9, 534 Area Intermedia 50 beneficiary 71–2, 230, 280–1, 477 Arequipa, town and region 262 Bermejo river 386 Arhuacan culture 67 Biblioth`eque Linguistique Am´ericaine 54, 478 Ariguan´ıriver 75 bilingual education 4, 5, 12–13, 15, 168, 194, Arte de la lengua cholona 460–75 585, 605–9 Arte de la lengua tonocot´eylule 385 bilingualism 131, 258, 262, 580, 592–6, 606 Arte de la lengua yunga 322 Biob´ıo, region 510, 516 aspect 133, 153, 190, 221, 226, 231, 281–2, Biob´ıo river 9, 505–6, 509 441, 455, 574 bipartite division of Quechuan dialects 181, aspirated consonants 35, 57–8, 131, 133, 186, 188, 191 187–8, 195, 198–9, 264, 266–8, 282, 302, bishopric of Trujillo 23 313, 351, 364–5, 379, 495 body-part terms 140, 213, 333, 427, 480, 482 aspirated vowels 87, 110, 131, 425 Bogot´a, valley of 46 aspiration 378 Boh´orquez, Pedro (rebel) 408 Atacama desert 375 Bol´ıvar, Sim´on (liberator) 9–10, 183, 589 Atacames, town 155 Bourbon administration 3, 167, 183 Atahuallpa (Inca ruler) 8, 167, 179, 395 Boyac´a, region 81–2 Atalaya, town 417 British Library 20, 460 At´anquez, town 67 Brouwer, Hendrik (settler) 506 Atrato river 62 Brunswick Peninsula 581 attenuator 272, 291 Buenos Aires, region and state capital of auca 413, 506 Argentina 507 augmentative 126, 216 Augustinians 173, 320, 401, 402 Cabana, town 401 autobiography 255, 296, 511 Cabeceras Aid Project 610–11, 623 auto sacramental 255 cabildo 79 auxiliary verb 59, 65, 70–1, 76, 137, 146, 150, Cachuy, indigenous community 171 443, 474 cacicazgos (chiefdoms) 411 Ayacucho, battle of 9 Cagu´an river 139, 163 Ayacucho, town and region 258, 263 Cajamarca, town and region 186, 403–7 ayllu (lineage group) 234 Calchaqu´ıvalleys, see Valles Calchaqu´ıes Aymara (name) 259 Caldas, Quind´ıo and Risaralda, region 49 Aymara substratum (in Arequipa and Puno) Callej´on de Huaylas valley 2 262 Canary Islands 586 Aymaraes, region 259 Canas and Canchis, region 262 Aymaranised nouns 267 Ca˜nar, town and region 256, 395, 602 canoe nomads 550–4, 555, 556, 581 Bacat´a 46 Cape Horn 6, 554 Bagua, town 406 Capuchins 151 Bah´ıa de Solano 56 Caquet´ariver 139, 164 barriadas (popular neighbourhoods) 607 Caral/Chupacigarro, preceramic settlement 2 basic colours 236, 295, 538, 549 Car´aquez, Bay of 392 Subject index 705

Carare river 114 Chancay culture 165 cardinal directions 561 Chancay river 165, 242–3 Caribs (as a cover term for hostile Indians) 24, Chanch´an, site 165, 320 52, 75 charango (musical instrument) 236–7 Carumas, town and indigenous community Charazani, town 350, 356 375 Charles III (king of Spain) 3 Casas, Bartolom´edelas (defender of Indian Charles V (emperor) 48 rights) 191 Chaupi˜namca (deity) 174 case 59, 65, 69–70, 79, 89, 99–101, 111, Chav´ın culture 8 128–9, 140, 145, 153–4, 156, 158–9, Chav´ın de Hu´antar, site 7, 165 213–16, 226, 277–8, 303, 328, 332, 356, Checras, Quechua-speaking community 258 367, 374, 380, 385, 387, 448, 460, Chibcha Sphere 5, 46 468–70, 476, 482–5, 494, 520, 545, 563, Chicama river 320 565 Chiclayo, town 319 case governed by verbs 101, 483 Chilo´e island 14, 502, 506, 508–10, 552, 553 Caspana, indigenous community 376, 379 Chimborazo, region 395 Catacaos, town and indigenous community Chimbos, region 395 398 Chim´u, Chimor, kingdom 8, 165, 320 Catalogue of the National Library, Madrid 140 Ch’imu, Ts’imu, indigenous community 31, Catamarca, town and region 407–9 363 catechisms 16, 20, 81, 106, 130, 182, 351, Chinchaisuyo, administrative quarter of the 392, 477, 544, 552, 565 Inca empire 181 Catequil (deity) 401 Chinchipe river 405–6 Catherine II of Russia 54 2 Cauca, region 141 Chiquitano, region 5 Cauca river and valley 3, 48 Chiquitos missions 25 causative 59, 64, 74, 133, 136, 216, 233, 279, Chira river 398 305, 355, 372, 384, 441, 534 Chita, town 110 Caut´ın, region 507, 509–10 Choc´o, region 56–9, 62 Cayapas river 141 Chota river and valley 605 ceceo 587 chroniclers 181 Central Andean linguistic features 145 Chucuito, town and region 259, 262–4 central Chile 506 circum-Caribbean cultures 8 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique cislocative 230 (CNRS) 55 Ciudad Perdida 48 Centro Amaz´onico de Antropolog´ıa y Ciudad de los Reyes 182 Aplicaci´on Pr´actica (CAAAP) 607 class-free suffixes 209 Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas classification 5, 22–45, 556 Abor´ıgenes (CCELA) 21, 55 classification networks 29–30 Cen´ufana (chiefdom) 50 classifiers 150, 153, 164, 451, 455, 459–60, ceramic phase of Andean prehistory 7 476 ceramics 8 classifying affixes 67, 125–6, 158, 160 ceremonial language 67 cleaning of the irrigation canals 377 ceremonial speech 64 cleft construction 118 Cerro de la Sal 423 climate 7 Cesar river 75 clitics 367–70, 595 Chachapoyas, town and region 167, 173, Clovis horizon 1, 506 406–7 coarticulated stop 85 Chaco War 296, 478, 498 coca 7 Chamaya river 6, 405 Cochabamba, town and region 411 706 Subject index

Coconuco, indigenous community 141 copula/verb ‘to be’ 59–60, 135, 155, 207, 209, Colla Capac (indigenous ruler) 350 275, 312–13, 330, 340–2, 382, 438 Collaguas, region 174, 262 copula verbaliser 275–6, 291, 426 Collasuyo, administrative quarter of the Inca correlative 19 empire 174 Cotopaxi, region and sacred mountain 241, colonial occupation by Spain 2–3, 9, 20, 131, 394, 602 344–8, 350, 362, 395, 411–13, 453, 548 creole studies 586 comarca (autonomous region) 62 Cu´elap, site 406 combinations of personal pronouns and case Cuenca, town 395 99 cultural diffusion 500 comitative 123, 136, 215, 332, 440, 469, 521 Cumancaya culture 419 complement clause 226, 372–3, 446 Cuna, pictographic writing system of the 48 complementiser ‘saying’ 446 Cundinamarca, region 38, 46, 81 completive 253 Cuntisuyo, administrative quarter of the Inca complex sentences 292, 430, 445–7, 498, 516 empire 174 compound tense 223, 229 Curaray river 456 compound verbs 59, 388, 448, 487, 571 Current Anthropology 27–8, 43 compounds 66, 70, 236, 274, 402, 425, 436, Curva, indigenous community 356 452, 518, 561, 566, 570 customary action 532 computer language 609 Cuyo, region 502, 506 Concepci´on, town in the Chiquitos area 477 Cuzco, name 178 Conchucos, region 401 Cuzco, capital of the Incas, town and region condenado 253 165–7, 180–3, 191, 255, 262, 350, 406, conditional 523–4, 533 413 conjecture 286 cuzqueros 180 conquista del desierto 508 cypher language 478 conquistadores 9, 16, 46–9, 53, 165–7, 392, 506, 508, 604 dalca (traditional boat) 552 Consejo Regional Ind´ıgena del Cauca (CRIC) Daquilema (Indian leader) 395 131 Darien, region 3, 56–7, 62 conservative classifications 26–7, 30, 31 data source 209 consonant clusters 68–9, 81, 85, 88–9, 110, dative 71–2, 79, 332, 429, 482–3 113, 128, 132, 153, 206, 268, 269, 273, Daule river 392 293, 351, 366–7, 379, 386, 402, 512–13, Death of Atahuallpa (traditional play) 254 545, 563, 569 debt slavery 417 consonant lenition 199–200 decimal counting 74, 123, 128, 140, 235, 375, constitutions 11–15 385, 538, 549 of Argentina 15 declarative 76–7, 111, 146–7, 354, 371, 437 of Bolivia 14 definiteness 122, 217, 435 of Chile 14 deictic roots 492, 560–1 of Colombia 4, 12 demographic decline 167 of Ecuador 13 demographic situation of Andean Indians 4 of Peru 13–14 demonstratives 65, 105, 122, 331, 368, 444, of Venezuela 11–12 457, 466, 537 contrary-to-fact 153 dental fricative 568 contrast 209 depalatalisation 204 convergence 5–6, 175, 591, 602 Desaguadero river 362–3 conversi´on de Hivitos 460 Descripci´on de la Gobernaci´on de Guayaquil conversiones 460 393 coordination 18, 215, 356 descriptions 192, 416, 499, 557 Subject index 707 descriptive and comparative studies 4 Eleg´ıas de Varones Ilustres de Indias 124 desiderative 285–6, 337 elision 206, 243, 368, 479 determined/non-determined distinction 485–6 Elqui valley 409 detrimental 280–1, 534 embedded clause 137 dialect chain 188 enclitics 209 dialectal variation 181, 265–6 encomenderos 138 dialectology 192–3, 264 encomienda 138 Diamante river 502 Encyclopaedia Britannica 27–8, 31 dictionaries 191–3, 257, 260, 265, 294, 494, Ene river 417 499, 511, 537, 550, 578 Entre R´ıos, region 41 difrasismo 236 epew (literary genre) 539 diminutive 126, 216, 435 epidemic diseases 3, 8, 182, 416, 555 Diocesan Synod of Quito 392 epistemic modality 70, 134–5 diphthongs 197, 322 equational clause 371 Direct knowledge 135 ergative 59–60, 70, 79, 111, 356, 360, 421–2, direct speech 234, 292–3, 539 470, 499 directional 59, 64–5, 190, 231, 278, 304–5, ergative patterning in verbal morphology 495, 448, 491, 498 563, 571 directional verb stems 64–5 Esmeraldas river 155 discourse structure 151, 225 Esmeraldas, town 155 distal past 70 Estudios Araucanos 510 distance scale 122, 537, 560 Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 55 distribution of languages in highland Bolivia Eten, town 321 176, 262 Ethnographic Museum, G¨oteborg 56 Doctrina Christiana 20, 182, 296 Ethnographic Museum, Hamburg 321 domestication of animals (camelids) 2, 7 Ethnologue 125, 416, 418 domestication of plants 2, 7 etnoeducaci´on 606 dominance of Aymara in the Bolivian euphonic element 429 highlands 263 evangelisation 3, 20, 25, 182, 398 domination by Spanish 4, 196 evidentials 153, 210, 283, 286–7, 367, 455, Dominicans 82, 191, 416–17, 452, 459 560 double negation 453 exclamative 464 double personal reference marking 426 exhortative 94–5, 473 double possessive 593 existential verb 150, 330, 384 dual 60, 65, 77, 155, 451, 455, 492, 519, 521, expansion of the Aymaran languages 171, 522, 524, 526, 571 176, 260–1, 263 Duchicela (indigenous rulers) 395 expected event 137 duplication pattern 597 experiencer verb 483 durative aspect 65 experiential past 229 Dutch occupation of Valdivia 506 Experimental Project of Bilingual Education dynamicity 490 194, 257, 296 expulsion of the Jesuits 24 earliest waves of migration 22–4, 42 extinction of languages 22 Early Horizon 7 extirpador de idolatr´ıas 255 early human settlement in the Andes 1–2, 7 extra-long vowels 569 ejective 187 extra-short vowels 301 El Dorado (legend of) 3, 8, 47–8 extrametrical syllable 118 El Ecuador Interandino y Occidental antes de la Conquista Espa˜nola 36 factual mood 71–3 Elal (deity) 582 failed action 530 708 Subject index family names 140, 395, 398–401, 403, 406–7 genitive 59, 61, 69–70, 80, 101–2, 111, 120, far-remote past 283 145, 149, 154, 213, 322, 328–9, 332–5, Federmann, Niklaus (conquistador) 129 352, 367–9, 470–1, 520, 545 Felipillo (interpreter) 179 genitive clitic doubling 596 Fell’s Cave, site 1 genitive pronouns 332 Fincen´u, chiefdom 50 genitive–locative 273 first Amerindian words borrowed into Spanish genocide 3, 10 116 geographic intertwining of languages 262–3 first-person marker in Quechua 189, 197, 207 gerund 473, 599–600 first-person-plural inclusive 211, 269, 370, glottal stop 68–9, 110, 113, 116, 118, 143, 375, 449 147, 351, 361, 365, 377, 387–8, 519, 563, fishing and shellfish-gathering 7, 552 568 Fitzcarraldo (rubber baron) 459 glottalised consonants 35, 187–8, 195, five-vowel system 196, 257, 366 198–200, 264, 266, 302, 351, 365, 378, focus 134, 523 379–80, 387, 494–5, 505, 578 folk literature 55–6, 511 glottalised vowels 75, 110, 131, 425 foot nomads 550–2, 555, 580 Goal 38, 99–100, 440 Formative Period 165 gold 8, 417 fortis velar 365 Government and Binding 19 four-term system of personal reference xx, grammars (colonial) 16–18, 20, 82–9, 191–2, 211–12, 218, 269, 493 219, 319, 477, 496, 522, 544 four-vowel system 452 Gran Chaco, region 5, 14, 40, 385–6, 411, fourth person 211, 213, 269 418, 488–99, 500 Franciscans 56, 416–17, 423, 478 Gran Pajat´en, site 407 frequentative 91–2, 94 Gran Vilaya, site 406 fricativisation 199–201 Great Civilisations 18 Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Guajira peninsula 115 Colombia (FARC), guerrilla movement Guamb´ıa, indigenous community 141 10 Guanacache, wetlands 502 fusion of tribes 5 guano exploitation 10 future tense 92–3, 219, 284, 306–8, 336–7, Guatavita, cacique of 47 370, 383, 389, 452, 486, 530, 574 Guaviare river 162 Guayas river 392 La Gaitana 48 g¨uecha 48 geminate consonants 62–3, 76, 81, 144, guerrilla movements 10 379–80 Guitarrero cave, site 2 gender 125, 134, 367–9, 423, 451, 455, 476, Guzmango, kingdom 404 496, 498, 560, 583 gender of addressee 462–3 habitual past 223, 227, 276 gender distinction in pronouns 149, 432, 451, haciendas 3, 459, 585 498 Handbook of South American Indians 26 gender–number 118–19 Hatun Colla, ancient town 234 gender-related language use 365, 478–9 heavy syllable 118 generic prefix 125 Hispanic values 590 generic term for possessed items 480 Hispanicisation 174, 176–7, 509, 607 genetic diversity 42 Hispaniola island 116–17 genetic relations 22–45, 159, 364, 431, 456, Historia del Nuevo Mundo 24 499, 556, 564, 578 Historia natural y moral de las Indias 23 genetically isolated languages 2, 22–3, 30, 61, homeland of Aymaran 263 164, 416, 454, 456, 475, 477–8 homeland of Quechua 180–2, 263 Subject index 709 honorific 455 indigenous communities (comunidades horse 556 ind´ıgenas) 10, 79, 237, 320, 362–3, Huailillas, mission 398 418 Huallaga river 405, 416, 460 indirect-object marking (on verbs) 71 Huamachuco, town and region 398, 401, 404 inferential 286–7, 455 Huambos, region 401 inferential past 224 Hu´anuco, town and region 411 Inferential knowledge 135 Huari, site 7, 165 infinitive 152, 226, 288, 355, 384, 526 Huarochir´ı, town and region 174, 255 infinitive complement 137, 226, 372, 573 Huarochir´ı manuscript 174, 187, 192, 255, 261 information status 458 Huascar (Inca ruler) 8, 167, 395 Instituto Caro y Cuervo, Bogot´a 55, 83 Huayna Capac (Inca ruler) 3, 8, 165–7 Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (ILV) 19, 447, huaynos 256 449, 457, 460 Huila, region 141 instrument nominaliser 227–8, 289, 339–41, huinca 539, 608 529 Humboldt current 7 instrumental 215–16, 312–13, 332, 352, 385, hunters and gatherers 7 440, 469 hunting and extraction economy 417 instrumental prefixes 387, 448 Hunza 46 instrumental–comitative 278, 356, 374 hypercorrection 203 instrumental–coordinative 304 interdental 510, 514–15, 516 Ibero-American Institute, Berlin 363, 401 interlanguage 592, 596 ich-laut 326–7 intermediary periods (archaeological) 7 iconicity 195 Intermediate Area 50 idiomatic expressions 103 internal vowel change 89–90 illative 374 International Journal of American Linguistics imperative 90, 92, 94, 127, 140, 153, 157, xvi 219, 222, 273, 284–5, 290, 309, 337, interrogative (as a verbal category) 76, 93, 354, 383–4, 387, 389–90, 442, 523, 546, 111, 146–7, 153, 546, 547 564 Interrogative / no knowledge 135 imperfective aspect 91–2 interrogative pronouns 105, 118, 295, 313, impersonal 71–2 334, 352, 375 implosive 57–8 interrogatives 61, 93, 313, 437, 537 impure vowel 323, 513 intralocutive 71 Inca empire 3, 5, 23–5, 180–1, 260–1, 500 intransitivisers 73–4 Inca nobility (colonial) 183 Introductiones Latinae 16 Inca Sphere 5, 165, 391 inverse/direct distinction 354, 525–6, 528–9 Incanised ethnic groups 418 inverse pulmonic nasal 454 Incas 8–9, 165–7, 178–81, 195, 254–5, 261, Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato) 41 263, 320, 350, 392, 401, 406, 411, 433, irrealis 442 459, 500, 506 irregular concord 598–9 inclusive/exclusive distinction 73, 222, 455, irrigation 2 481 Iru Itu, indigenous community 362 indefinite 12–13 Isla del Sol, island 363 independence (of the Andean states) 3, 10, Isla Huapi, island 510 183, 350, 507 Issa Oristuna, indigenous reserve 75 independent suffixes 208–9, 224, 273–5, itive 231, 534 290–2, 313–14 Indian movements 4, 10 Ja´en, town and region 396, 405–6 indigenista movement 4, 181, 254–5, 590 Jequetepeque river 320 710 Subject index

Jesuits 17–18, 24, 163, 254, 259, 264, 408, lexical borrowing 6, 36, 66, 159, 352, 357, 416, 433, 447, 457, 477–8, 552, 556, 605 434, 549, 580–2 Jim´enez de Quesada, Gonzalo (conquistador) from Aymaran 171, 263, 279, 302, 375, 385, 46 476, 538, 549, 591 Jivaroan uprising 397 from Quechuan 131, 160, 175, 295, 314, joint action 133, 151 325, 378, 385, 391, 393, 403, 424, 448, Juan del Oso (mythical figure) 256 476, 538, 549, 590–1 Juan Santos Atahuallpa, rebellion of 423 from Spanish 59, 74, 87, 105, 128–9, 131, Juli, town and mission centre 264 150, 152–3, 196–7, 233–4, 236, 241, 245–6, 253, 280, 293, 298, 325, 378, kankurua (place of worship) 67, 438 384–5, 391, 488, 517, 538, 582 kinship terms 106, 235, 294, 329, 425, 427, lexical gender (in verbs) 388 455, 480, 538 lexical diffusion 5, 500 lexical number (in verbs) 388, 571 La Leche river 320 lexical similarities 49, 57, 140, 142 La Pampa, region 505, 514 lexical suffix 79, 140 La Plata, town and river in Colombia lexico-statistics 431 138–9 Library of the Royal Palace, Madrid 82–3 La Rioja, town and region 407–9 Licancabur, mountain 376 La Tolita culture 156 Lima, as a centre of migration 258 labial click 454 Lima, Aymaran communities in the labialised consonant 131, 365 department of 261 labiodental fricative 510, 516 Lima, Peruvian state capital and former labio-postvelar 365 residence of the Spanish viceroys 167, labiovelars 63, 69, 76, 84, 131, 365, 407 182, 205 lack of polysynthesis 40 limitative 469 Lamas, town and region 186 lingua franca 3, 477–8, 500 Lambayeque, town and region 319, 400 linguistic area 579 landholding system 10 linguistic diversity 2, 22, 81, 183, 416 language attrition 580–2 linguistic fieldwork 20, 191 language contact 4–6, 195, 386, 580–2 linguistic rights 3 language families 26, 416, 454, 499 linguistic taboo 581 Language in the Americas (Greenberg) 27 L´ıpez (region) 362 language maintenance 5, 194, 256, 258 literary production 254–6, 296, 539, 580 language mixture 602 lithic technology 7 language planning 515, 585, 605–8 llanos (eastern plains of Colombia and language shift 6, 258–9, 262 adjacent Venezuela) 24, 162–3 language surveys 21 Loa river 375–6 Les langues du monde (Meillet and Cohen) 26 Location 99, 100 laryngealisation 198–9 location (as a verbal category) 498 Late Horizon 8 locative 60, 70, 136–7, 189, 214, 276, 312–13, lateral fricative 144, 364–6 356, 374, 397, 428, 439, 447–8, 470, 485, lateralisation 205 491–2 Lecturas Araucanas 511 locative–accusative 145 lengua general (general language) 81, 163, locative–genitive 276, 303 167, 175, 296, 350, 453 locative–possessive verbalisation 276 lengua matriz 25 Loja, town and region 396–7, 432 Leticia triangle 164 loose morphological structure 40 lexical and grammatical entwining (of Lord’s Prayer 106–9, 344–6, 359, 376, 381–4 Aymaran and Quechuan) 36 Loreto, region 418, 423, 456 Subject index 711 loss of aspiration 266 Monsef´u, town 321 lowering of water level (in Lake Titicaca) 363 monta˜na (Andean-Amazonian foothills in Lucanas, region 262 Peru)9,13, 411, 419, 424, 499 Lupaca, kingdom 7 Monte Verde, site 1, 506 Lur´ın river 165 month names 538 mood 218, 222, 282–7, 380, 389, 442, 472, Macotama, religious centre 66 522, 523–4, 573 40 Moquegua, town and region 263 Madre de Dios, region 416, 418, 423, 459 morphological transparency 209, 274 Magalh˜aes (Magellan), Fernando de 15 morphophonemic variation 117, 202, 481–2, Magdalena river and valley 9, 38, 46, 48, 512, 517, 546 52–3, 75, 112, 114–15, 138, 161 morphophonemics 69, 267, 323, 441, 463 maintenance model (of bilingual education) morphosyntax 69 606–9 motion 153, 477 maize 7 Motupe, town 320 Malleco, region 507, 509–10, 516 mucuch´ıes 128 mal´on (Indian raid) 507 Muequet´a 46 mama (spiritual leader) 67 multilateral comparison 43 Manab´ı, region 392–3 multilingualism 4, 67, 164, 180–1, 477, 580 Mantaro river and valley 257, 261 multiple vibrant (trill) 58, 68, 81, 117, 205, manuscripts 20 243, 325 Mapuche uprising 539 mummification techniques 2 Mar Chiquita, lake 502 Mus´ee de l’Homme, Paris 55 Maracaibo, town 115 Museo de la Plata 582 Maracaibo, lake 11, 38, 52, 99, 112, 115, 124 mathematics teaching 609 Nabus´ımake, indigenous town 66 Maule river 506 417 metathesis 435 narrative past 224 Mara˜n´on river 319, 401, 405–6 nasal cluster 515 M´erida, town and region 124 nasal contour 163 Mesoamerica 120, 156, 364 nasal spread 58, 164, 478, 479, 487 Messianic movements 9 nasal vowels 69, 81, 113, 131, 143, 147, 156, mestizo 255, 418, 590–1 433, 454–6, 479, 496, 499 Meta river and region 162–3 National Library, Madrid 192, 544 Middle Horizon 7 National Library of Colombia 82–3 migration to urban areas 258, 507 nationalism 10 milenarismo andino, see Andean Millenarism nativos 413 mining vocabulary 589 Navarino island 554, 567 missions 4, 16–17, 24–5, 56, 67, 131, 139, 165, 263 151, 163, 408, 416, 419, 423, 447, 452, near past 389 457, 459, 460, 476, 477, 552, 556, 567 near-remote past 283 mitimaes 167, 176, 237, 261, 319, 395, 406, negation 70–1, 78, 93, 133, 153, 158, 209–10, 506 281, 291, 309, 313, 360, 380, 420, 441, mixed dialect 82 443, 448–9, 473, 487, 522, 532–3, 546 Moche, town and indigenous community 320 negative command 90, 384, 443, 448, 533 Mochica culture 165 negative participle 70–1 modal suffix 183 negative possession 158 moh´an (indigenous priest) 84 negative subordination 342 Mojos, Moxos, chiefdom 422 negative verb 119, 385, 603 Mojos, Moxos missions 25 Nele Kantule (Indian leader) 62 712 Subject index neologisms 123 Ollantay (theatre play) 192, 255 Neuqu´en, region 514 onomatopoeic roots 236–7 New Granada 23, 48, 53–4, 74, 84 Op´on river 114 New Testament translations 578 optative 222, 224, 473 nominal derivation 467–8 Or´elie-Antoine I (king of Araucania and nominal inflection 36 Patagonia) 507 nominal negation 133, 137, 532 Orellana, Francisco de (explorer) 431 nominal person markers 212, 269, 426 oriente (Amazonian lowlands of Ecuador) nominal predicate 98, 118, 134–5, 207, 209, 12–13, 454 275–6, 382, 487, 536–7 Orinoco river 161, 163 nominal tense 494 Orteguaza river 163 nominalisation 17–18, 69–70, 72, 76, 93, 137, orthography xvi–xix, 86, 183, 194, 257–9, 140, 146, 150, 218, 224, 226–9, 265, 275, 270, 302, 377, 513, 515, 544, 572 288–90, 311–12, 339, 355, 372–3, 380, Otavalo, town 393–4 384, 389, 453, 473, 498, 519, 522, ownership 216–17, 277, 289 526–30, 547 nominative 332 Pacaicasa, site 1 nominative–accusative system 145, 207 Pacasmayo river 320–1 non-finite verbs 70, 76 Pachacamac, site and religious centre 8, 165 Non-involver 286–7, 290 Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui (Inca ruler) 8 non-possession 119, 329, 427 Pachitea river 419 Norte de Potos´ı, region 176 pacification of Araucania 9, 507, 511 noun classes 423, 427, 480 Paij´an, town 320 noun incorporation 59, 66, 159, 449, 518–19, palatalisation 131, 407, 434, 450, 481, 489 563 palatals 322–3, 324–8, 403, 425 number 111, 125, 133, 153, 221, 269, 354, Paleo-Indian hunters 506 388, 455, 496, 519, 522–3, 538, 547 Pallasca, town and region 401–3 number of language families 2 Pampa Wars 556 number of eastern lowland Indians 13–14 pampas 10, 505, 507–8 number of speakers of highland languages Pampas del Sacramento 422 (Aymara, Mapuche, Quechua) 13–14, Pancen´u, chiefdom 50 168, 258 Paracas culture 165 numeral classifiers 66, 79, 329, 342–3, 470, Paraguayan missions 24 471 Paranapura river 456 numerals 34, 66, 74, 79, 83, 106, 111–12, 123, Pariacaca (deity) 174 128, 140, 150, 235, 277, 294–5, 314–15, partial reduplication 388, 476 343, 361, 368, 375, 385, 391, 424, 470, participle 92–5, 156, 340, 390 500, 549 passive participle 95, 547 n¨utram (literary genre) 539 passive voice 64, 95–6, 123, 150, 329, 335, 338–42, 368, 483, 485–6, 523, 534, 547 object marking (on nouns) 136, 303 past tense 92, 383, 485–6, 530 object marking (personal reference in verbs) Pastaza river and region 454 71, 78, 97–8, 154, 208, 218, 264, 275, Pasto, town 142 282, 306–8, 310, 353, 384, 473–6, 498, Patagonia 505, 507–8, 550, 554–6 524, 548, 557 Path 99–100 object-oriented nominaliser 137 paucal 492 object pronoun 147 Peine, indigenous community 376–7 obligation 289, 338, 383, 573 Pe˜nas, Gulf of 553 obviative/proximate distinction 523–5 percentages of Indian population 11 Oca˜na, town and region 116 Peren´eriver 417 Subject index 713 perfective aspect 221, 231, 441, 530, 595 possessive affix 98, 119, 277, 359, 381, 389, perlative 374 390–1, 402, 420–1, 425, 427, 449, 451, permissive 456 476, 490, 494 person hierarchy 521, 525–6 possessive construction 77, 214, 278, 358, personal names 408 382, 390, 452, 519 personal reference 35, 59, 61, 65, 71–3, 77, possessive modifier 419, 444, 449, 457, 88–9, 96–8, 119, 122, 133–6, 140, 147, 519–20, 527, 529 153–4, 156–7, 189, 192, 211–12, 218–21, possessive pronoun 65, 77, 147–8, 352, 358, 226, 269, 275, 282–3, 306, 329–32, 353, 360, 382, 439, 451, 482 358, 380, 383, 388–9, 423, 426, 436–8, postposition 79, 89, 101, 129, 154, 328, 453, 459, 463, 471–2, 481–2, 498, 511, 332–3, 356, 419, 449, 468, 482–3, 495, 521–3, 545, 557, 582 520, 545, 560–1, 563, 565, 567, 576 personal reference number marking 212–13, posture verb 65, 150, 388 222, 546 postvelar 365–6, 378–9, 402, 409 Peruvian Corporation 417 potential 153, 284–6, 309, 372, 442 petrified suffix 69, 74 preaspirated consonant 145, 495 Philip II (king of Spain) 182 preaspirated glide 568 phonology 57–9, 62–3, 68–9, 75–6, 81–9, preceramic phase of Andean prehistory 2, 7 112, 117–18, 143–5, 152, 156, 194–207, predicate marker 570 270–4, 301–2, 321, 361, 364–7, 377–80, prefix fusion 472 386–7, 424–5, 433–5, 450, 454, 463, 479, preglottalised consonant 76, 144 489, 496, 512–17, 564–5, 567–70, 591 prehistory 7–8 phonotactics 35, 267, 293 prenasalised consonant 58, 75, 131, 133, 152, phylum 28 434 physical characteristics of the Andean region preposition 128, 332, 484–5, 497, 576, 599 6–7 present tense (absence of) 530 pidginisation 602 preterit 336, 337 Pikimachay, site 1 preverb 133 Pilcomayo river 385, 493 preverbal adverb 535 Pinochet Ugarte, Augusto, military preverbal complement 273 government of 507 proclitic 370, 453, 559, 561 pitch accent 118 professional language 357 Piura, town and region 398 Programa de Formaci´on en Educaci´on Pizarro, Francisco (conquistador)8,167, Intercultural Biling¨ue para los Pa´ıses 179 Andinos (PROEIB Andes) 257 Plate, River 3, 6, 505 progressive aspect 221, 224, 231, 281, 338 pluperfect 601 promaucaes 506 plural 60, 65, 77, 155, 190, 212, 221–2, pronominal possession 69, 136, 437 269, 277, 281–2, 305, 331–2, 356, 375, pronouns 73, 111, 127, 147, 155, 269, 329, 382, 390, 492, 509, 521–2, 524–5, 545, 353, 358, 360, 367–8, 375, 382–3, 391, 560 436, 450–1, 466, 481–2, 498, 519–20, polar question 209–10, 291, 331 529, 545, 557, 574–5 Poop´o, lake 362 proto-language 35, 80, 112, 202, 266–7 Popay´an, town 142 Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue portmanteau suffix 190, 208, 219–20, 245–6, (PEEB) 257, 296, 608 339 pseudo-passive 123 Portuguese 417 Pubenza federation 142 Portuguese slave-raiders 417 Puerto Eden, town 553 possession 119, 239, 367, 487, 496 Pueblo Llano, town 125 possession acted upon 71 Puerto Hormiga, site 8 714 Subject index

Puerto Montt, town 506 relational–possessive form 113–14, 119–20, Pun´a, island 392 329, 332, 335, 381 Puna de Atacama 376 relational case marker 428 Puno, Bay of 259, 362 relational stem 120–1 Puno, town and region 350, 595 relative clause 15, 17–19, 69, 102, 118, 123, Purac´e, indigenous community 141–2 137, 213, 288, 292, 341, 372–3, 427, 430, purpose clause 228, 239–40, 288–9, 312, 341, 447, 526–8 428, 446 relative verbs 93 Putumayo river 151, 163–4 relativiser 292, 430 relexification 5–6, 602 Quebrada de Humahuaca 410 religion 7–8, 84 quechua as a generic term 168 remote past 389, 455 Quechua (name) 179, 259 reportative 534 quechua leg´ıtimo 181 Reproacher tense 285–6 Quechua renaissance 183 resguardos 12, 112, 141 Quechuanisation 12, 170, 175, 394, 397 resistance (indigenous) 9, 48–9, 75, 131, 138, Quell´on, town 510 139, 431, 433 question words 18–19, 137, 209, 236, 291, restrictions on verb structure 217–18 448, 458, 465–6, 578 resultative 372 Quichua (name) 179 resumptive pronoun 595 Quimbaya, goldsmith’s art of the 48 retroflex 365, 568 Quimbaya federation 49 retroflex affricate 113, 189, 201, 264–5, 302, quipu 254, 542 424–5, 514, 517 quipucamayoc 254 retroflex flap 117 Quisg´o, indigenous community 141 retroflex glide 516 Quito, capital of the northern Inca empire and retroflex sibilant 202, 325 of the Republic of Ecuador 167, 393–4, retroflex vibrant 204 398, 406 retroflex voiced fricative 591 reversal of personal reference categories 359 racionales 413 reversive 231 raised fields 2 rhetoric 538 Ranco, lake 510 rhetorical question 245 real mood 73, 583 rich obstruent inventories 264 realised event 137 Rimac river 205 realised/non-realised distinction 223 Riobamba, town 395 reciprocal 279, 305, 429 rise of sea levels 1 recognition of Quechua as a national language Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum 322, 351 4, 256 Robledo, Jorge (conquistador)49 reconstruction 37, 55, 194–5, 267, 431, 495 Roca, Julio Argentino (military leader) 10, reducciones 416, 433, 452, 477, 507 508 reduplication 119, 123, 232–3, 295–6, 436, root economy 26, 293 539, 549, 561, 564, 566 root structure 269 reflexive 133, 279, 305, 372, 485–6, 526, 534 Royal Commentaries of the Incas 23 reflexive pronoun 391, 548 rubber exploitation 3, 10, 162, 164, 417 regional kingdoms 8 regional standard language 256 sabana 46, 50 regionalisation 8 Salado river, Argentina 188 Relaci´on de la tierra de Ja´en 173, 405 Salado river, Chile 376, 379 Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias 174, 261, Salar de Atacama 376 385, 393–7, 405 saltpetre exploitation 10 Subject index 715

San Agust´ın, site and culture 8, 48, 53, 138–9 sequences of case markers 216 San Agust´ın, stone sculptures of 48, 138 Seville 586–7 San Andr´es de Sotavento, town and indigenous shape morphemes 459–60 community 52 shape of object, verbs varying according to 74 San Basilio del Palenque, Afro-Colombian shared lexicon 35, 140, 159–60, 267, 461, settlement 605 499, 555–6 San Blas, archipelago of 62 sierra (Andean highlands) 20, 181, 411 San Dami´an de Checas, indigenous Sierra de C´ordoba 502 community 255 Sierra de la Macarena 161 San Juan river 56 Sierra Nevada del Cocuy 52, 109–10 San Juan de la Costa, town 509–10, 514 Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 37, 48, 50–2, San Mart´ın, Jos´ede(liberator) 9, 183 66–7, 75 San Miguel de los Ayamanes, indigenous Sierra de Perij´a 50, 80, 112 community 129 Silvia, town 141 San Pedro de Atacama, town and indigenous Simancas, colonial settlement 139 community 376 Sinamaica, lagoon of 116 San Pedro de Casta, indigenous community singulative 155 595 Sin´uriver 62 sandhi 62–4, 270 Si´on, ancient mission 460 Sangay, volcano 432 Siquesique, town 129 Santa Ana de Chipaya, indigenous community Socaire, indigenous community 376–7 363 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge Santa Cruz de la Sierra, town and region 477 498 Santa Elena Peninsula 8 Sogamoso, town and religious centre 46 Santaf´edeBogot´a, state capital of Colombia song texts 256, 261, 296 and former capital of New Granada 81 sound correspondence 462 Santo Domingo de los Colorados, town and sound symbolism 199, 203–4, 315, 516, 559 indigenous community 141 Source 440 Santa Marta, town 52 South American Missionary Society 550 Santa Rosa, hacienda 417 Spaniards 8–9, 124, 138–9, 179, 263, 350, Santiago del Estero, town and region 168, 401, 409, 417, 433, 585 177, 386, 408 Spanish American republics 10, 589 Saraguro, town and indigenous community spatial adverbs 104, 520–1 395–6, 602 spatial deixis 235–6, 295, 422 Sarmiento, Domingo Faustino (president of spatial distinctions 79, 275, 278–9, 293, 304, Argentina) 508 333, 428, 533–4 schwa 323, 352, 377, 512 spatial nouns 304 Scyri 394 speaker/non-speaker distinction 146 Sech´ın Alto, site 7 speech registers 64, 433 second language (L2) acquisition 592 spheres, cultural and linguistic 4–5 second-person pronouns (of Spanish) 587 spondylus shell 8 selva (Amazonian forest area in Peru) 13 sprachbund 204, 591 semantic influence 591 standardisation 20, 117, 194, 256–8, 477, semantic interpretation, range of 234 607 semantic underspecification 103 state 157–8 semi-vowel 513–14 stative nominalisation 228, 289–90, 311–12, Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), guerrilla 339–41, 355, 527 movement 10 stative verbs 91–2, 122, 490 sentential particles 537, 600 stem modification 485 sentential suffixes 208–9, 291, 465 stock (language) 28, 30 716 Subject index

Strait of Magellan 1, 581 tense 73, 111, 218, 222–4, 282–7, 306–8, 380, stress 69, 110, 132, 145, 156, 190, 206–7, 389, 421, 429, 441, 494, 522, 530–2, 566, 243, 270–2, 273, 367, 386, 434, 463, 489, 574 569 tense–aspect 370–2, 472 structural similarities between Aymaran and Tequendama, site 8 Quechuan 267 Tercer Concilio Limense (Third Lima Council) structural transformation 36 20, 182 studies on Quechua 191–4 textiles 8 Suaza river 139 texts in Andean languages 21 subject-centred nominaliser 17, 137, 227, 229, theatre plays 183, 255 288 three-vowel system 156, 195, 270, 301, 402, subject extraction 372 409, 424–5 subject marker 564 Tiahuanaco, site 7, 165, 375 subject/non-subject distinction 17–19 Tierra del Fuego 550–82 subjunctive mood 429 Tigre river 456 subordinate clause 209, 373–4, 576 Timan´a, town 138–9 subordination 137, 149, 218, 223, 224–6, 275, Tingo Mar´ıa, town 460 287, 310–11, 341, 355, 389–90, 420–1, Titicaca, lake 7, 170, 175, 259, 262–4, 275, 456, 547 350, 362–3 substratum 6, 149, 172, 358, 393, 404, 409, Tolima, region 114 510, 511, 586, 589 Tomebamba, ancient town 395 Sucre, Antonio Jos´ede(liberator) 9 tonal languages 80, 163, 164, 450 sudden discovery tense 224, 534, 601, 603 tone, grammatical 80, 164 suffix order 209, 232, 274 tone, lexical 75–6, 80, 110–11, 563 Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) 19, 21, topicalisation 70, 136, 209–11, 291–2, 313, 55, 454, 608 356, 430, 600 supine 95, 342 toponymical area 404–5 suppletion 89, 328, 571 toponymy 21, 53, 114, 125, 140, 170, Swadesh list of basic vocabulary 130–1 172–6, 261–3, 350–1, 392–409, 562, sweet potato 41 565 switch-reference 146, 149, 189, 218, 223, totora 175 225–6, 238, 241, 275–6, 287, 310, 373–4, Tounens, Antoine Or´elie de 507 420–1, 446, 473 tourism 417 syllabic lateral 545 traditional healers 356 syllable structure 131, 206 trans-Andean contacts (between tropical forest syncope 63–4 and coastal plains) 6 synonyms 236 trans-Pacific connections 41 synthetic conjugation 122–3 transition (combined personal reference marking of subject and object in verbs) Tabaconas, town 401 219, 282, 306–8, 353, 384, 473–4, 522, tagmemics 19, 193 525–6, 528–9 Tahuantinsuyo 165 transitional model (of bilingual education) Taki Onqoy (religious movement) 9 606–8 tal´atur (ceremonial song) 377 transitive/intransitive distinction 64, 90–1, 94, Taquile, island 350 233, 420–1 Tauca, town 402 transitiviser 73–4, 339, 384, 421 Telarmachay, site 2 transitivity 490 Telemb´ıriver 141 trapecio andino 174 temperate altitude zone 179 tripartite division of native American temporal deixis 295 languages 42 Subject index 717

Trujillo, town and region in Venezuela velar nasal 144, 194, 264, 266, 302, 304, 325, 124 332, 365, 465 Trujillo, town in Peru 320, 328, 398, Velasco Alvarado, Juan, military government 401 of 256 truncation 367 ventive 227, 230, 280, 289, 305, 534 Ts’imu, see Ch’imu verb classes 571 Tucum´an, town and region 386, 408 verb-initial languages 118, 155 T´umbez, town 179, 392 verbal complement 102–3 Tupac Amaru II (Jos´e Gabriel) 3, 9, 183 verbal derivation 208–9, 218, 229–32, 275, Tupac Amaru, rebellion of 183, 255 278, 280, 293–4, 304–5, 339, 355, Tupac (Inca) Yupanqui 8, 416, 459 475–6, 487–8, 491, 509, 522, 533, Tupe, indigenous community 171 546, 571–2 typological distance 2 verbal inflection 35, 442, 522, 573–5 typological regions 50, 55 verbalisation 277, 474–5, 530, 534 verbs of ‘carrying and holding’ 235, 293–4 Ucayali, region 418 verbs of communication 233–4, 293, 446, Ucayali river 411, 418–19, 431 539 United Provinces of R´ıo de la Plata 3 verbs of ‘eating’ 105, 388 universal quantifiers 137 verbs ‘to do’ 150 Universidad de los Andes, Bogot´a 21, vertically organised network of cooperation 6 55 viceroys of Peru 167, 182 University of Costa Rica 55 162 University of Florida 260 vigesimal count 106 University of San Marcos, Lima 18 Vilcabamba, Inca stronghold 9 University of Valpara´ıso 377 Viltipoco (Indian leader) 410 University Library of Cuzco 544 Viracocha (Quechua name for Spaniards) unku 254 179 Upper Amazon valley 24, 432 virtual mood 73 Upper Magdalena region 53, 139–40, visitas 138, 259, 403 163 voiced palatal fricative 395 Urab´a, Gulf of 50, 61 voiceless lateral 327–8, 379, 387, 494, 498 Urituyacu river 456 voiceless nasal 387 411 voiceless vowels 143, 366 Ushuaia, town 567 voicing 182, 198–9, 266 Utcubamba river 405 vowel fluctuation 198 uvulars 178, 183, 194–8, 201–2, 243, 257, vowel harmony 264, 268, 339, 463, 473, 259, 264, 301, 351, 358, 361, 365, 379, 495–7, 499 383, 387, 505, 566 vowel length 76, 81, 110–11, 118, 131, 143, 190, 195, 270–1, 275–6, 284, 287, 289, Vacacocha, lake 456 301–17, 322, 323–4, 327, 361, 366, Valdivia, town and region 506, 509, 510 377–8, 425, 433, 463, 479 Valdivia, Pedro de (conquistador) 409, 506, vowel loss 198, 268, 323 508 vowel suppression 35, 89, 101, 110, 267–8, valency-changing affixes 73–4, 89, 218, 229, 271–4, 278, 281–2, 286, 293, 302–3, 355, 232, 305, 423, 533–4 367 validation 70, 210–11, 419–20 La Voz de los Andes (radio broadcasting Valles Calchaqu´ıes (Calchaqu´ıvalleys) station) 607 408–9 Vaup´es, river and region 162–3 Wafer, Lionel (ship’s doctor) 62 velar glide 513 Wars of Independence (against Spain) 9–10 718 Subject index warofsuccession (between Atahuallpa and ye´ısmo 587 Huascar) 8, 167 Yur umangu´ıriver 60 witnessed/non-witnessed 494 word order 59, 61, 65, 69, 70, 79, 99, 111, zambos 155 114, 118, 127, 129, 145, 207, 274, 367, Zamora, town and region 397 370, 380, 385, 419, 424, 429, 443–5, 447, Za˜na, town 319 449, 452, 456, 457, 460, 475, 476, 488, zaque (indigenous ruler) 46 493, 495, 497, 560–4, 566–7, 575–9, Zepita, town 362 597–8, 603–4 zero complement 273–4, 288, 303 writing system, lack of indigenous 2 zero person 118–23 zipa (indigenous ruler) 46–7 yanacona 53 Zipaquir´a, town 82 Ya r´ıriver 162 zones of refuge 6 Yava r´ıriver 417 Zulia, region 115–17