The “Loup” Languages of Western Massachusetts: The Dialectal Diversity of Southern New England Algonquian
IVES GODDARD Smithsonian Institution
INTRODUCTION
It is a remarkable fact that the area of the traditional Algonquian-speaking world that was apparently the most diverse linguistically is also the least well known, and even more remarkable, perhaps, that this largely over- looked area is not on some remote tundra but in western Massachusetts, where we might not have expected such neglect. In this paper I hope to cast some feeble light into this dark corner and to make a preliminary attempt to map in greater detail than previously the linguistic diversity of all of Southern New England Algonquian (SNEA), the languages that were spoken over most of southern New England and Long Island. The dialectal diversity of southern New England was rst noted by Roger Williams (1643:107 [105]) and John Eliot (1666:2), the two great Algonquianist pioneers of the seventeenth century. Using what we can now see are the re exes of Proto-Eastern Algonquian *r, illustrated by the word for ‘dog’ (PEA *DUΩP < PA *DșHPZD), they divided the languages of the area covered by the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island into several large blocks (1).1
1. Abbreviations: AI = animate intransitive; anim. = animate; dial. = dialect; EAb = Eastern Abenaki; EMah = Eastern Mahican; II = inanimate intransitive; inan. = inani- mate; imp. = imperative; loc. = locative; Mah = Mahican; Mass = Massachusett; Mes = Meskwaki; Mun = Munsee; Narr = Narragansett; obv. = obviative; PA = Proto-Algon- quian; PEA = Proto-Eastern Algonquian; p, pl. = plural; s, sg. = singular; SNEA = Southern New England Algonquian; TA = transitive animate; TI = transitive inanimate; TI(1) = Class 1 TI; Un = Unami; WAb = Western Abenaki; WMah = Western Mahican. Pronominal glosses: 1s = 1st singular; 2p = 2nd plural; 3 = 3rd obviative; 1s-3s = rst singular acting on third singular.
104 THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 105
(1) 5HÀH[HVRI3URWR±(DVWHUQ$OJRQTXLDQ ULQWKHZRUGIRUµGRJ¶ µGRJ¶ 5RJHU:LOOLDPV -RKQ(OLRW /DQJXDJH /n/ /an m/ ߧAnùmߨ (“Cowweset”) ߧAnúmߨ (“we 0DVVDFKXVHWWV”) [Massachusett] /y/ /ay m/ ߧAyímߨ (“Narriganset”) [Narragansett] /l/ /al m/ ߧAlùmߨ (“Neepmuck”) ߧAlúmߨ (“1LSPXN,QGLDQV”) [Nipmuck] /r/ /ar m/ ߧArúmߨ (“Qunnippiuck”) [Quiripi] /r/ /ar m/ ߧArúmߨ (“1RUWKHUQ,QGLDQs”) [language?]
Massachusett, in easternmost Massachusetts, had /n/, and the /n/ area extended west as far as East Greenwich, Rhode Island, to include the Cow- eset dialect. Beyond that, the re ex was /y/, starting with Narragansett, which was otherwise a dialect of Massachusett, and including Mohegan- Pequot (which was not named). An /r/ was found in western Connecti- cut (near New Haven) and in far northeastern Massachusetts and Maine. (Exactly what Eliot meant by “the 1RUWKHUQ ,QGLDQV” is not known, but they were presumably between the Massachusett and the Etchemin (God- dard 1978:70–71).) And with /l/ was the language of the Nipmucks, who lived in central Massachusetts. Linguists knew hardly more about the /l/-Algonquian of the interior than this word for ‘dog’ until they were able to consult two mid-eighteenth- century manuscripts from the French missions in Canada that record the speech of people called /RXSV. The longer of these, titled “Mots Loups,” was written by Jean-Claude Mathevet, probably sometime after 1749. The careful edition by Gordon Day includes photographs of all pages (Day 1975); a master’s thesis by Holly Gustafson (2000), written under David Pentland, lists the in ected words by category. The much shorter “Langue de[s] Loups,” which remains unpublished, has been attributed to François- Auguste Magon de Terlaye (Hanzeli 1969:128; Goddard 2008:248, 313); although its authorship has not been demonstrated, it is here referred to for convenience as being by Terlaye. If it is indeed by him it must have been written in 1755 or later.2 I will continue the convention of distinguishing
2. The manuscript (Magon de Terlaye 1755) is among miscellaneous writings in several hands on both Algonquian and Iroquoian languages. I have worked from photographs kindly sent to me by Gordon Day, which are more easily read than the available micro- lm. David Pentland (personal communication, 2012) has pointed out that the handwrit- ing does not match that of other manuscripts believed to be by Terlaye. The authorship and date merit further investigation. 106 IVES GODDARD what Mathevet called /RXS as “Loup A” and using the label “Loup B” for what Terlaye referred to as /RXS (Goddard 1978:71–72). The French term /RXS (literally ‘wolf’) translated the Algonquin name for the Mahican, a borrowing of the Mahican self-designation that was assimilated to general Ojibwe PDҌLLQJDQ, the name for the animal (Brasser 1978:211; Goddard 2008:261, 300). Despite this speci c origin, already in the seventeenth century /RXS began to be extended to any East- ern Algonquians for whom a more speci c name like Abenaki was not known.
VARIATION IN LOUP A
Loup A is placed in the Eastern Algonquian dialect continuum in (2). The re exes of PEA *hm sort the languages shown into three groups: Delaware- Mahican (which retains /hm/ or reduces it to /h/),3 SNEA (which has plain /m/), and Abenaki (which has /p/).
(2) 5HÀH[HVRIGLDJQRVWLF3($FRQVRQDQWVDQGVXI¿[HVLQVRPHODQJXDJHV 3($ *hm *r *-hm na 1p *-hmwa 2p 'HODZDUH0DKLFDQ Munsee hm r > l -hna -hmwa Western Mahican hm n -hnah -hmah Eastern Mahican hm n -hnah -hmah 61($ Loup A [1] m l -m n -m [2] m l -m n -m “Quiripi” m r, y -m n — “Narragansett” m y, n -m n — Massachusett m n -m n -m w4
3. By a minor sound law shared by Munsee and Mahican, PEA *KPΩQ was reduced to /hn/. 4. Mass PΩZ2p has incorporated ΩZ, the second plural suf x in some other paradigms (Goddard 2007:229). THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 107
$EHQDNL Western Abenaki p l -p na -pa Eastern Abenaki (Caniba dial.) p r -p na -pa (Penobscot dial.) p l -p na -p 5
The plain /m/ in the rst and second plural intransitive suf xes puts Loup A in SNEA, but Mathevet’s paradigms are actually of two distinct types, neither of which has an exact match among the other known SNEA lan- guages. One type (labeled “Loup A [1]” in (2)) has the same regular loss of word- nal Proto–Eastern Algonquian vowels as in Massachusett, but without the reshaping of the second plural suf x that is found in that lan- guage. The other type (called for the nonce “Loup A [2]”) has an added word- nal /- / in both plural suf xes. The added word- nal /- / in the “Loup A [2]” intransitive paradigms also appears in transitive paradigms, and in fact there are two different in ections for TA verbs with this feature. Verbal in ections thus point to the existence of three distinct languages that are represented in the Loup A manuscript. I have proposed to call “Loup A [1]” simply Loup 1 (Goddard 2007:228), and to refer to the other two varieties of Loup A as Loup 2 and Loup 3 (Goddard 2007:235–236, 2008:294–296). Loup 2 is like Munsee in retaining the older shape of the Z-endings (the endings that make the TA objective paradigms), with /w/ before the peripheral suf xes (e.g., /-ak/ anim. pl.) and in the rst plural endings (3).6
(3) 7$2EMHFWLYH'LUHFWLQ0XQVHH/RXSDQG0DVVDFKXVHWW 0XQVHH /RXS 0DVVDFKXVHWW 1s-3s n —a·w n — n — 1s-3p n — ·wak n — wak n — ak 3s-3 w — ·wal w — wa(h) w — h 1p-3s n — ·w na n — w n n — w n 1p-3p n —a·w n ·nak n — w n nak n — w n nak
5. In the Penobscot dialect, EAb /-pa/ 2p (preserved in the older-attested Caniba dialect) has been replaced by /-p /, which has taken over /- / from suf xed forms and other paradigms. The equivalent innovation is found in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy (Goddard 2007:228), 6. TA objective direct forms of Loup 2 are on pages 19, 24, 71, 72, 83, 89, and 111 of Mathevet’s manuscript (Gustafson 2000:78–80). 108 IVES GODDARD
Massachusett has basically the same paradigm as Munsee and Loup 2, with some phonological changes. In the Massachusett ending for rst (and second) singular on third plural (/- ak/) the *Z has dropped by a regular sound law, but the animate plural peripheral suf x /–ak/ remains as a sepa- rate syllable.7 In the corresponding endings in Loup 3, by contrast, the /w/ has every- where disappeared. With a rst (or second) singular subject the animate plu- ral suf x is just /-k/, as in Eastern Mahican and the Abenaki languages (4).8
(4) 7$'LUHFWLQ(DVWHUQ0DKLFDQ/RXSDQG:HVWHUQ$EHQDNL (0DKLFDQ /RXS :$EHQDNL 1s-3s n — w n — n — 1s-3p n — k n — k n — k 3s-3 w — h w — (h) w — (< earlier /w — h/)9 1p-3s n — na n — n n — nna 1p-3p n — n k n — nawak n — nnawak
Loup 2 and Loup 3 also have different rst plural suf xes (see (3), (4)). Again, Loup 2 agrees with Massachusett (having the old non- nal exclusive suf x PEA *ΩQƗQ), and Loup 3 agrees with Abenaki (having the old non- nal inclusive suf x PEA *ΩQDZ). The verbal paradigms thus suggest that Loup 1 was geographically closest to Massachusett, Loup 3 was closest to Western Abenaki, and Loup 2 was in between. The nasal vowel / / of some Eastern Algonquian languages is the regular re ex of PEA *Ɨ and PA *a· (Goddard 1978:75, Table 2, no. 5). The word- nal /- / in Loup 2 and Loup 3 that is not found in other East- ern languages continues a PA *a· that was retained as PEA *Ɨ before a consonant-initial enclitic but shortened to PEA *a by regular sound change before a pause. The original alternation between the two allomorphs sur-
7. The /w/ is retained in this ending in a Native document from Martha’s Vineyard (Goddard in Goddard and Bragdon 1988:519). 8. TA objective direct paradigms of Loup 3 are on page 29 of Mathevet’s manuscript (Gustafson 2000:78–82). 9. Eastern Mahican distinguishes between /w — n/ 3s-3 s and /w — h/ 3s-3 p (Goddard 2008:294); nineteenth-century Native writers attest WAb /w — h/ before enclitics (LeSourd 2015:327, 329). THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 109 vived in nineteenth-century Munsee and in both Mahican languages (God- dard 2007:214, 228, 2008:263–265). While other languages (and more recent Munsee) generalized the pre-pausal allomorphs (in some cases with the regular loss of the nal vowel), Loup 2 and Loup 3 generalized the pre-enclitic allomorphs. The same generalization of the longer allomorphs is attested in the speech of the last semi-speakers of Mahican (Goddard 2008:269–270).10 There is a great deal of variation in Loup A in addition to that seen in verbal in ections. It is often the case that one variant (marked “a” in the examples in (5)) has western or northern af nities (matching or resembling Western Abenaki), and another (marked “b”) has eastern af nities (resem- bling Massachusett). Presumably variants of the rst type are from Loup 2 or Loup 3, and those of the second type are from Loup 1 or Loup 2, but the materials do not permit precise labeling.
(5) 2WKHUYDULDWLRQLQ/RXS$ i ‘I’ a. /n ya/ ߧniaߨ (3x in the ms.) b. /nil/ ߧnilߨ (ca. 10x) ii ‘know it’ a. /k w wihton/ ߧki8a8itonߨ ‘you know it’11 b. /n w w( )ht n/ ߧne8au8tenߨ ‘I know it’ iii ‘chief’ a. /s m / ߧsanchemanߨ b. /s m/ ߧsanchanߨ iv AI 1s, 2s a. /k kawi/ ߧkeka8iߨ ‘you sleep’ b. /n pos/ ߧnep8sߨ ‘I embark’ (stem |posi-|)
Loup A ߧniaߨ ‘I’ (5ia) matches Mah /n yah/,12 Loup B ߧnihaߨ, WAb ߧniaߨ, and EAb QΩC\D (< PEA *QΩ\DZ < PA *ni·\DZL ‘my body’, whence in some
10. This explanation of the added /- / in Loup is more comprehensive and has stronger comparative support than a simple generalization of suf xed allomorphs, which was suggested in Goddard (2007:235). 11. The phonemicizations of the Loup languages in this paper do not mark long high vowels, but it is an open question whether there was a contrast of length in these vowels (as in Mahican, at least marginally), or no contrast (as in the Abenaki languages). The convention is maintained, however, of marking / /, / /, and / / as long in Proto-Eastern Algonquian and in the phonemicizations of Massachusett. 12. Day (1975:362 n. 603 and n. 608, 363 n. 642, 371) indexes ߧniaߨ as Abenaki but notes that it is used in three otherwise Loup sentences. 110 IVES GODDARD languages ‘myself’). Loup A ߧnilߨ ‘I’ (5ib) matches rather Mun ní· (archaic ní·O) and Mass /n n/ ߧnenߨ, ߧneenߨ (< PA *ni·ra ‘I’). For the Class 2 TI in Loup A there are two forms with ostensible /to/ like /k w wihton/ (ߧki8a8i- tonߨ) ‘you know it’ (5iia); this is the archaic in ection retained also by, for example, Munsee (Mun QΩÙZH·ZtKWR·n ‘I know it’) and Abenaki (WAb ߧN’namiton ‘I see it’ߨ).13 There are approximately 10 Loup A forms with the in ection of /n w w( )ht n/ ߧne8au8tenߨ ‘I know it’ (5iib); the apparent generalization of /-t / in the objective paradigm is unique in Eastern Algon- quian.14 Additionally, the form in (5iib) has the usual SNEA weakening of a metrically weak high vowel (PEA * > / / or ), but this appears to be absent in (5iia), matching Munsee, Mahican, and Abenaki. The Loup A forms in (5iiia) and (5iva) preserve voiced nal syllables that are otherwise lost in SNEA, as in the Loup A forms in (5iiib) and (5ivb). Compare the retention of these syllables in WAb /s k m / (ߧsôgmôߨ, ߧzôgemôߨ) ‘chief’ and WAb ߧn’kawiߨ ‘I sleep’, and their loss in Mass /s ty m/ (ߧsontimߨ) ‘prince’ and Mass ߧnuttabߨ ‘I am somewhere ’. Loup A /s m / ‘chief’ does, however, have the SNEA palatalization of *k to / /, which shows that this is not simply the Abenaki word.
DIFFUSION IN NEW ENGLAND LANGUAGES
The variation in Loup A and the af nities between the different Loup A languages and various of their neighbors must be considered in the context of the widespread diffusion of sound changes, basic vocabulary, and mor- phology in the languages of New England. The direction of the diffusion is not uniform, as can be seen from two phonological innovations shared with Mahican, the nasal vowel / / (< PEA *Ɨ) and the loss of nasal consonants in clusters (6).
13. The Loup A form differs from WAb ߧnewawaldamenߨ ‘I know it’, but compare the objectless TI(2) WAb ߧwawitoߨ ‘know how to’. 14. Massachusett apparently has generalized /-t / to most or all of the TI(2) absolute paradigm (Goddard in Goddard and Bragdon 1988:424), and Cree has the cognate /-ta·/ in all TI(2) forms; the vowel (PA *a· > SNEA / /) spread from the third person forms in the independent absolute and the conjunct (Goddard 1979:72). THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 111
(6) 5HÀH[HVRI3($ ZƗSDQNƝµWRPRUURZ¶LQVHOHFWHGODQJXDJHV > Mun wa·p nke > EMah /w p kah/ (Jefferson ߧwampokahߨ, Edwards ߧwupkohߨ) > Loup A /w pa / (ߧ8ambachaߨ)15 > Loup B /w pak / (ߧ8npakaߨ, ߧvnpa aߨ)16 cf. Mass /m ht pak/ (ߧmohtompogߨ) ‘in the morning, when it was day’
The nasal vowel / / is generally pronounced with the unusual timbre [ ·], which is phonetically identical to Mohawk ߧenߨ ([ ], [ ·]), one of the two inherited Iroquoian nasalized vowels in that language (Mithun 1979:163). The Mohawk vowel would be an obvious phonetic model for the innovative Algonquian vowel, and the speakers of Western Mahican were neighbors of the Mohawks in the upper Hudson Valley. It seems evident, then, that the nasal vowel in the Eastern Algonquian languages arose rst in Mahican and spread eastward into SNEA and (except before a consonant cluster) Abenaki. (Later, at the eastern margin, EAb / / was denasalized, at least among the last speakers, to Penobscot EAb / / [ ·], an oral vowel with the same peculiar timbre.) The loss of nasals as the rst member of clusters is found in Mahican, SNEA, Abenaki, and all languages further east, but not in the Delaware languages. Given the ancient genetic subgrouping of Mahican and Delaware, this innovation must have diffused into Mahican from the east after it was distinct from Munsee. Lexical borrowing also goes in both directions. The Abenaki rst- and second-person emphatic pronouns diffused westward into one variety of Loup A (5ia) and into Loup B and Mahican; the Mahican pronouns must be borrowings because they do not have the shape that an inherited cognate would have (Goddard 2008:286). Conversely, Mahican was in some cases the source of loanwords that spread to the east. EMah /n max m/ ‘my grandfather’ (ߧNemoghhomeߨ < PEA *QΩPΩK[ǀP < PA *QHPHKãR·ma) was taken into Western Abenaki as WAb ߧnmahomߨ ‘my grandfather’, displacing
15. Presumably the Loup A languages that generalized /- / from pre-enclitic occurrences of PEA *Ɨalso generalized /- / from occurrences of PEA *Ɲin the same environment (cf. Goddard 2008:263–64). 16. In words that can be identi ed, ߧ ߨ in the Loup B manuscript seems to be the equivalent of ߧkߨ; note ߧ teloaߨ “ie dis” (= /kt low / ‘you say’). 112 IVES GODDARD the inherited word WAb ߧnmosom(is)ߨ in its original primary meaning (now ‘my remote male ancestor’). Similarly, Mah /px n m/ ‘woman’ (Schmick ߧp’ch nimߨ, Swadesh ߧpxa·n mߨ) must be the source of the usual word in Loup B and both Abenaki languages: Loup B /ph n mok/ ‘women’, WAb ߧphanemߨ ‘woman’ ([ph n m], [p h n m]), EAb SKqQΩP.
VARIATION IN LOUP B
There is variation in the Loup B manuscript, and in fact evidence here also for at least three languages, with various af nities. These languages will here be referred to as Loup 4, Loup 5, and Loup 6. Loup 4 appears to be the same as the Loup 3 of the Loup A manuscript; Loup 5 is innovative and more like other SNEA languages; and Loup 6 has archaic features and resemblances to Mahican.17 For example, there are three Loup B words for ‘beaver’ (7).
(7) :RUGVIRUµEHDYHU¶LQ/RXS%18 i. [Loup 4] /t m hkw / ߧtmank8aߨ = Loup 3 ߧtemank8aߨ (cf. WAb /t mahkwa/) ii [Loup 5] /t m hkw/ ߧtmankߨ cf. Mass ߧt múnkߨ (Josiah Cotton), Pequot ߧtummonkqߨ (James Noyes) (Costa 2007:95) iii [Loup 6] /am skw/ ߧamosߨ cf. EMah /am škw/, Mun DPy[NZ
Loup 4 matches Loup 3; the nal syllable is retained but the nasalized vowel shows that the word is not Western Abenaki. In Loup 5 the nal syl- lable is lost, making the word identical with the variant of the SNEA word attested, for example, in Massachusett and Pequot. And the putative Loup 6 form is identical with Eastern Mahican. The words in (7) thus illustrate a recurring challenge that the Loup B data present: What reason is there to think that a word that seems to be identical with one in another language was not simply obtained from someone who knew that other language? Data will be considered below that would appear to make explanations of this kind super uous.
17. In the following examples each Loup B word is conjecturally labeled with one of these numbers in square brackets (e.g., as “[Loup 4]” or simply “[4]”). 18. The manuscript has ߧtmank 8aߨ, to be interpreted as ߧtmankߨ, ߧtmank8aߨ. Abbreviations of this kind are here silently expanded. THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 113
>U@>O@>Q@DQG>\@
The Loup A and Loup B manuscripts differ noticeably in what they attest as re exes of PEA *r. In Loup A the re ex appears consistently as ߧlߨ, except word- nally in suf xes.19 In Loup B, in contrast, PEA *r appears as apparent [l], [r], [n], and [y], all re exes that are found elsewhere in Eastern Algon- quian ((1), (2)), where their distribution does not, generally speaking, line up closely with language boundaries. Even dialects may differ (as notably Narragansett and Massachusett), and in some cases changes have occurred within the historical period, as with the shift of older /r/ to modern /l/ in Munsee and several other languages (Goddard 1978:75). In Loup B the difference between ߧrߨ and ߧlߨ (or ߧllߨ) does not cor- relate with any other feature. It is also signi cant that apparent [r] and [l] are sometimes both found in the same transcription of a single word (8).
(8) 3($ ULQ/RXS% KHVLWDWLRQEHWZHHQߧrߨDQGߧlߨ i ‘it is good’ [4] /w l t/ ߧorillittߨ “honeste”20 /PEA *ZΩUΩW < PA *ZHșHWZL (> Mun. ZΩի OΩ֤W, Mah /w n t > ߧ nitߨ; cf. WAb ߧwligenߨ) ii ‘it is light’ [4] /lal kan/ ߧlarankanߨ “leger”21 < PEA *UƗQNDQ (reduplicated) < PA *ra·QNDQZL (> Loup A /l l kan/ ߧlanlanganߨ [reduplicant /l -/], Mun Oi·nkan, Mass /n kan/ ߧnunkonߨ; cf. WAb ߧnanôgigenߨ [reduplicant /na-/])
The words in (8) show Terlaye writing both [r] and [l] in cases where these sounds could not have been phonemically distinct. There might have been free variation between distinct sounds, or intermediate sounds that could be heard either way. The same indeterminacy is found in the few words of the Wampano dialect of Munsee that were recorded from a single speaker
19. In Loup A PEA *DU inan. pl. and ΩU 1s-2s are usually spelled with a nal ߧsߨ or ߧxߨ, both apparently representing the /-s/ found elsewhere in SNEA, especially in the west, instead of the /-š/ of Massachusett (Goddard 1981:59; Costa 2007:88–9). The devoicing of the consonant appears to block the loss of the nal syllable. 20. The gloss KRQQrWH‘honest, respectable, etc.’ seems to point to a pidgin use for both genders, like the cognate Pidgin Delaware ߧoritߨ ‘good’ (Goddard 1997:68). 21. The same in the corresponding AI: Loup B ߧlarankissuߨ. 114 IVES GODDARD in 1751, and an apparent intermediate-stage voiced lateral fricative could still sometimes be heard in Munsee into the 1970s (Goddard 2008:247–248, 2010:3–4).22 Because ostensible [r] and [l] do not contrast and do not indi- cate distinct Loup B languages they are here both assigned to a single phoneme, arbitrarily represented as /l/. In several cases the same or related words in Loup B have both [r] and [n] or both [l] and [n]. Presumably, the words with [n] do not come from the same language as those with [r] or [l].
(9) 3($ U!/RXS%ߧrߨ ~ ߧnߨDQGߧlߨ ~ ߧnߨ i ‘it is evening’ [4] /w l k w/ ߧ8rankoߨ23 (“soir”) < PEA *ZΩUƗNΩZ < PA *ZHșD·NZLZL (> Mun ZΩի Oi·NΩZ; reshaped in WAb /w l koo/ ߧwlôgwooߨ) ii ‘yesterday’ [5] /w n k w/ ߧonankoߨ (“hier”) < PEA *ZΩUƗNΩZƝ < PA *ZHșD·NRZH· (> EMah /wn k wah/ ߧwnukuwohߨ ‘yesterday’, Mun ZΩի Oi·NΩի ZH, WAb ߧwlôgoaߨ /w l k wa/)24 iii ‘you are right’ [4] /kol m / ߧcolammaߨ (“ainsy”; “ouy”) < PEA *k r mw < PA *ko·șD·PZH· (> WAb /kol ma/ ߧk’olômaߨ “you are in the right,” /w l ma/ ߧwlômaߨ “he is in the right”)25 iv ‘you are right’ [5,6] /kon m / ߧkonammaߨ (in ߧma konammaߨ “ila manty” [‘he lied,’ but actually ‘you lie’], with ߧmaߨ ‘not’) (> Mass /k n mw m/ ߧk nomwamߨ “thou hast said the truth,” /w n mw w/ ߧwunnomwauߨ “he saith true”)
The variants in (9) can be labeled in a way that is consistent with the numbering in (7) and (8). The Loup B language with /l/ must be Loup 4 ((9i), (9iii)), as this appears to be the same as the Loup 3 of the Loup A manuscript (cf. (7i)). The fact that Terlaye heard [r] and [l] (in Loup 4)
22. Wampano was spoken in the mid-eighteenth century on the Housatonic River in western Connecticut. Dialectal variation between [r] and [l], with intermediate sounds, is also found in contemporary Mohawk (Marianne Mithun, personal communication, 2012). 23. The ߧrߨ in ߧ8rankoߨ replaces ߧnߨ. 24. Cf. Mes ana·NRZH‘yesterday’. 25. Cf. Arapaho KtșR·Ept‘tell the truth (you sg.)!’ < PA *ZHșD·PZH·ro. THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 115 while Mathevet wrote only ߧlߨ (in Loup 3) need not mean that these were different dialects. Perhaps there was similar variation or indeterminacy in the Loup that Mathevet heard, but he normalized this to ߧlߨ on the basis of his knowledge of Algonquin, which had shifted [r] to [l] within living memory, as he well knew.26 The Loup B language with /n/ and nal-syllable loss (9ii) must be Loup 5 (cf. (7ii)), and the other language with /n/ (9iv) must then be Loup 6. Three Loup B words seem to have /y/ from PEA *r. These cannot be assigned to any of the otherwise identi ed Loup languages.
(10) 3($ U!/RXS% /y/ i ‘ten’ [?] /m tay/ ߧmetaiߨ (“10”) < PEA *PΩWDUD (> WAb ߧmdalaߨ, ߧmedalaߨ; Rhodes and Costa 2003:202) ii ‘he is big’ [?] /mhs kiy/ ߧpsikíߨ (“grand” [‘tall’]) < PEA *PΩK[ΩNƯO < PA *PHҌșHNLșZD (> Mun [ZΩ̗ ki·O, Loup B /mhs kil/ ߧpsikilߨ “superbe” [‘haughty’], EAb PKVΩ̖ NLO) iii ‘baptize me!’ [?] /sok n p yih/ ߧsokenopaiߨ (“ie baptise” [‘I baptize’]) beside /sok n p lih/ ߧsokenepanriߨ [4] (cf. Mun so·NΩի QΩSi·OL·O)
The word for ‘ten’ (10i) is in a list of numbers following ߧnori8eߨ ‘nine’ (cf. WAb ߧnoliwiߨ), and number words are ordinarily obtained by having them counted off in order by a single speaker. Thus, not only the apparent [y] in ‘ten’ but also the loss of the nal syllable is unexpected. There are also ve or six instances of ߧlߨ being written for what should have been an /n/ in all languages (11).
(11) /RXS% ߧlߨ IRUH[SHFWHG /n/ i ‘marten’ [?] ߧapalaxisߨ (cf. WAb ߧapanakesߨ, EAb HKSDQiKNΩVVR) ii ‘women’ [?] ߧfalemokߨ (3x; cf. WAb ߧphanemokߨ, EAb SKqQΩPRN)
26. It is obvious that Mathevet had studied Algonquin and that his knowledge of that language in uenced not only his elicitation but his writing of some Loup words. His papers in the Sulpician archives include the writings of earlier linguists who wrote Old Algonquin with ߧrߨ. According to Cuoq (1886:357), Eli Dépéret, who arrived in Canada in 1714, was the rst missionary to use ߧlߨ instead. 116 IVES GODDARD
Most likely the phoneme /n/ was occasionally pronounced like an [l], as was the case in 19th-century Sauk, Meskwaki, and Kickapoo, which had recently collapsed the distinct phoneme /l/ with /n/ (Goddard 2003b:182–183; God- dard in Witte and Gallagher 2008:xxii).
)LQDO6\OODEOH/RVV
Loup B words with and without the loss of a nal voiced syllable (*-V or *-VC) are in (12). Another pair of examples showing the contrast was seen in (7i) and (7ii), and (9ii) also shows the nal-syllable loss. A Loup A word with the two treatments is in (5iii).
(12) )LQDOV\OODEOHUHWHQWLRQDQGORVVLQ/RXS% i ‘my tongue’ [6] /ninan w/ ߧninanoߨ (“langue”) < PEA *QƯUDQΩZ < PA *ni·șDQ\LZL (> Loup A /nilan w/ ߧnilan8ߨ; Mun ní·ODQΩZ; cf. WAb ߧwilaloߨ ‘his, her tongue’) [5] /ninan/ ߧninanߨ (cf. Mass /n nan/ ߧneenanߨ) ii ‘dish’ [6] /w n kan/ ߧ8naganߨ (“8ragan”)27 < PEA *ZΩUƗNDQ < PEA *ZHUD·kani (> EMah /w n kan/ ߧWaun–naw–conߨ,28 Mun ZΩի Oi·kan ‘wooden bowl’,29 WAb /w l kan/ ߧwlôganߨ) [5] /w n k/ ߧ8nacߨ (cf. Mass /w n k/ ߧwunnonkߨ) iii ‘I sleep’ [4,6] ߧnek 8iߨ /n kawi/ (“ie dors”) < PEA *QΩNDZƯ (cf. Loup A [3] /k kawi/ ߧkeka8iߨ ‘you sleep’) [5] ߧnekoߨ /n kaw/ (cf. Mass /n kaw m/ ߧnukkouemߨ; Loup A [1] /n pos/ ߧnep8sߨ ‘I embark’)
27. The French gloss RXUDJDQis a loan from Algonquin. 28. Catlin (1841, 2:103) gave the Mahican name of John W. Quinney (1797–1855) as “:DXQQDZFRQ (the dish)”; the usual word, originally a diminutive, is attested as the locative /w n kan s k/ ߧ n g n ss kߨ, ߧ n g niss kߨ. 29. Heard from Nicodemus Peters of Six Nations Reserve by Frank T. Siebert, Jr., in 1938; not accepted at Moraviantown in the 1960s, where the word was ZΩի Oi·NDQΩV‘dish, small bowl, plate’. THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 117
The pairs of words in (12) con rm that there were two Loup B languages that had /n/ < PEA *r, one with the original Proto–Eastern Algonquian voiced nal syllables retained and one with nal-syllable loss (cf. (9ii)). As in other SNEA languages, the lost syllables were evidently often restored by analogy where in ectional suf xes were involved; a verb form like that in (9iv) could thus be not only from an /n/-language that retained nal syllables (Loup 6), but also from an /n/-language that lost nal syllables (Loup 5) but restored stem- nal long vowels in word- nal position. It is evident, however, that the /n/-language word in (9iv) and the shortened vari- ant in (12iii) are not Massachusett words, as they lack the suf x /-m/ that Massachusett adds in the rst and second singular after a long-vowel stem (Goddard in Goddard and Bragdon 1988:514). Also, the verb in (9iii) and (9iv) has lost the *Z from the cluster *PZ, which mainland Massachusett retained unchanged. And, in fact, no Loup B word seems to be distinctively Massachusett. Ockham’s Razor thus disfavors postulating a speaker of Mas- sachusett as the source of other shortened words with /n/, such as those for ‘tongue’ (12i), and ‘dish’ (12ii), even though they have the same shape as the Massachusett words.
9DULDWLRQLQ,QÀHFWLRQDO6XI¿[HV
Although there is little data on Loup B paradigms, even the small amount of grammatical information that exists shows variation.30 The suf x for inanimate plural (< PEA *DU) is found in three clearly distinct shapes that appear to con rm the existence of three languages (cf. (8), (9)).
(13) ,QDQLPDWHSOXUDOVXI¿[HVLQ/RXS% i. /-al/ inan. pl. [4] /wan wayal/ ߧ8anoaiarߨ ‘his cheeks’ (“joue”) (cf. WAb ߧwanowaalߨ ‘the cheeks; his or her cheeks’) ii. /-as/ inan. pl. [5] /n wiht was/ ߧn8etoasߨ ‘my beard’ (“barbe”)31 (cf. EAb /w ht wal/ ‘whiskers’; Mass /n s taš/ ߧnusseetashߨ ‘my feet’)
30. The writer attempted to elicit Iroquoian grammatical categories, such as feminine and dual forms of verbs, obtaining what appear to be pidginized circumlocutions. 31. Word- nal /-s/ < PEA *Uas also in Loup A (see note 19). 118 IVES GODDARD
iii. /-an/ inan. pl. [6] /skamonan/ ߧskamonanߨ ‘corn’ (“ble dinde”) (cf. EMah ߧscommonunߨ ‘corn’,32 WAb ߧskamonalߨ ‘kernels of corn’)
The AI imperative singular is attested in two shapes, both found also in Loup A. The suf x PEA *U is either retained as /-s/ (14ii) or replaced by the inherited TI(1) suf x /-h/ (14i; Goddard 2008:277, 285).
(14) $,LPSHUDWLYHVLQJXODULQ/RXS% i. /-h/ 2s imp. [4] /apih/ ߧapiߨ, ߧapeߨ ‘sit!’ (“ie massois” [‘I sit down’]; “ici” [‘here’])33 (cf. Loup A ߧp8ssiߨ ‘embark!’ [Loup 3]; WAb /api/ ߧabiߨ ‘sit!’) [4] /milih/ ߧmiliߨ ‘give (it) to me!’34 (cf. Loup A ߧmili!ߨ ‘give (it) to me!’ [Loup 3]) ii. /-s/ 2s imp. [5] /k n pis/ ߧknebisߨ ‘be quick!’ (“tost”; “vite”)35 (cf. Loup A ߧkilipisߨ ‘be quick!’ [Loup 1 or 2];36 Mass ߧapshߨ ‘sit!’)
An ߧhߨ was never written in the suf x /-h/ 2s imp. but is assumed to have been present because the /h/ in the corresponding suf x was pronounced in Mahican (Goddard 2008:277, (27d)) and, at least in some environments, in Western Abenaki (LeSourd 2004, 2015:327, 329). If a form ߧloasߨ that follows what seems to be given as the rst singular of a verb ‘to speak’ (“parler”) is a singular imperative /l w s/ ‘say so !’ it would match the Loup A forms (putatively Loup 1) that have /l/ and /-s/ 2s imp. (14ii).
32. Capt. Hendrick in Morse (1824:31), also copied as “shammonun” (Jones 1854:15); perhaps Hendrick’s original had *skammonun. Thomas Jefferson wrote ߧish-cammonùnߨ (¿GHCarl Masthay), which supports a phonemicization as EMah / škam nan/, with the innovated cluster /šk/ (Goddard 2008:298–299). 33. Also in: /yo apih yolakwi/ ߧio ape iolak8eߨ ‘sit here on this side’ (“acote” [‘beside’]). 34. In /mhs li milih/ ߧpsalimiliߨ ‘give me a lot!’ (“liberal” [‘generous’]). 35. Written twice, on successive lines. 36. Corrects an earlier ߧkilipilߨ (Day 1975:338, n. 25), which Mathevet wrote with Algonquin /-l/ 2s imp. THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 119
0DKLFDQ,QÀXHQFH
There is other undoubted Mahican in uence in Loup B besides one of the words for ‘beaver’ (7iii) and, presumably, the shift of PEA *r to /n/ ((9ii), (9iv), (12i), (12ii)).
(15) 0DKLFDQLQÀXHQFHLQ/RXS% /RXS i. ‘bread’ [5] /pt kw nik/ ߧmtagonikߨ (“pain”)37 (cf. SNEA /p t kw n k/, /p t kw n kan/, and /p t kw n k/: Loup A ߧpitig8nikߨ (etc.) [Loup 1] and ߧpitig8niganߨ [Loup 3], Quiripi ߧpetúkqunnegߨ, Pequot ߧPtuckenucߨ, Mass ߧpetukqunnegߨ) [6] /takwahs/ ߧtag8esߨ38 (cf. Mah /t kwax/ ߧtachquòchߨ, ߧtquokhߨ) ii. ‘wolf’ [5] /atohkw s/ ߧatok8isߨ (“loup”) (cf. Mass /nat hkw s/ ߧnatt hqusߨ, Narr ߧnatóqusߨ; also Narr /m wat hkw s/ ߧmoattôqusߨ “A blacke Wolfe”) [6] ߧmitsiaߨ (perhaps intended as *ߧmistsiaߨ)39 (cf. Mah /m x w/ ߧmechchaoohߨ [B.S. Barton], ߧmix tc u ߨ [Olive Eggan]) iii. ‘it is cold’ [5] /tk y/ ߧtkaiߨ ‘it (a thing) is cold’ (“froid”) < PEA *WDKNƝ\ΩZ (> Mah /t h y w/ ߧd’h juߨ ‘it is cold (e.g., water)’, Mass /tahk y/ ߧtohkoiߨ ‘it is cold (weather)’) ‘it is cold [6] /tahk w/ ߧtak oߨ, ߧtakauߨ40 weather’ < PEA *WDKNƝZ (> Mah /t h w/ ߧtah oߨ ‘it is cold weather’, WAb /tka/ ߧtkaߨ, Loup A ߧtekaiߨ [Loup 1] and ߧtekaߨ [Loup 3])41
37. The manuscript has ߧmetagonikߨ with a vertical line through the ߧeߨ. 38. Evidently added later after the rst word. 39. The ߧtߨ in ߧtsߨ is exactly like the ߧsߨ with an added cross stroke. 40. Listed among words for weather and seasons; the manuscript has ߧtak o v auߨ, i.e., ߧtak oߨ vel (‘or’) ߧtakauߨ. 41. The common II nal that is invariant /-ya·/ in Meskwaki-Kickapoo and Shawnee and invariant /-a·/ in Cree and all varieties of Ojibwe has shapes in Eastern Algonquian that would point to PEA *Ɲ, *Ɲ\Ω, and *Ɲ\Ư; the explanation for this variation is uncertain (Goddard 2013, n. 33). 120 IVES GODDARD
iv. ‘this (anim.)’ [6] /nowa/ ߧN8aߨ “luy” (cf. Mah /noh/ ‘this (inan.)’ and SNEA /y wa(h)/: Mass ߧyuuhߨ, Narr ߧewòߨ, Quiripi ߧewoߨ)
The second word for ‘bread’ in (15i) is the distinctive Mahican word, but with SNEA or Abenaki phonology. The second word for ‘cold’ in (15iii) has the specialized meaning and retention of nal /-w/ found in Mahi- can, but without the Mahican shift of PA *hk to /h/, and without the syncope of the rst vowel found in Abenaki.42 Conversely, the rst word for ‘cold’ differs from Massachusett in meaning and in having the vowel syncope, and because it has nal-syllable loss it cannot be Mahican or Loup 3 or 4. The word in (15iv) is emblematic of Loup 6 as a marginal SNEA language, sharing in some innovations and not in others, that has unique bor- rowings from Mahican. By a widespread innovation in SNEA, PEA ΩZD, the originally suppletive form for ‘this (anim.)’ (> Mah / wah/ ߧuwohߨ), added the initial syllable /y -/ that characterizes the other forms of the proxi- mal demonstrative set, giving /y wa(h)/. By an innovation otherwise unique to Mahican (Goddard 2003a:55), the initial \ of this set (< PEA *Ω\) has been replaced by /n/, giving Loup 6 /nowa/ ‘this (anim.)’.43 (Compare Mah /noh/ ‘this (inan.)’ beside Mass /y / ߧyeuߨ < PEA * y .) The form of this word only makes sense if there was a Loup B language that was between Mahican and general SNEA and in uenced by both. In the case of some other Loup B doublets the word that resembles Mahican is also found in Western Abenaki (Loup B ߧskamonanߨ ‘corn’ [13iii]; ߧtmaiganߨ ‘axe’; ߧ8asonleߨ ‘snow on the ground’). The synonyms given for these are matched elsewhere in SNEA (Loup B ߧoiatsomanߨ ‘corn’; ߧtagankߨ ‘axe’; ߧk8nߨ ‘snow’). There are other patterns of shared vocabulary as well.
42. While an apparent Loup B ߧtasioߨ ‘it is cold’ would match the Mahican diminutive /t h s w/ (ߧt hasòߨ Schmick, ߧtasúߨ Eggan), I take the ߧtߨ as more likely a writing of /tk-/. 43. There is also the regularized animate plural /nowak/ ߧl8akߨ (“eux”), with allophonic [l] for /n/ (cf. (11)). THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 121
0DUJLQDO5HWHQWLRQV
The retention of word- nal unstressed voiced syllables in Loup 3 and 4 ((7i), (15i)) and Loup 6 (12) makes these languages exceptional within SNEA (which otherwise lost such syllables) and more like Mahican and Abenaki, which were presumably their neighbors. This is an example of the retention of archaic features at the geographical margin of an area of closely related dialects and languages. The conservatism of outlying areas has sometimes been recognized as a general phenomenon called by the Ital- ian term PDUJLQDOLWj, but the critical element in cases like the present one is, in addition, the retained likeness between a conservative member within a genetic unit (here SNEA) and a similarly conservative but more distantly related language outside that unit (here Mahican or Abenaki, or both). Another conservative feature of Loup B (presumably Loup 6) that is marginal and unique in SNEA is the failure to palatalize PEA *k before *Ɲ ((6), (16)). In the other SNEA languages *k in this environment was replaced by a palatal stop (/ty/) or affricate (/ /).
(16) 3($ NQRWSDODWDOL]HGEHIRUH ƝLQ/RXS% /RXS i. ‘something’ [6] /k kwan/ ߧkag8anߨ44 < PEA *NƝNZ (> EAb NHNZ ‘something; what?’, Un, Mun Np·NZ ‘wampum’;45 cf. Mah /k kway/ ߧg quaiߨ, ߧkauquiߨ ‘something; what?’, WAb ߧgagwiߨ; but Loup A ߧchag8aߨ, Narr /ty kwan/ ߧTéaguunߨ ‘what?’; Mass /ty kw/ ߧteagߨ, ߧteaugߨ ‘thing’; ߧchaquanishߨ ‘things’; ߧteaguaߨ, ߧteagueߨ, ߧteaguasߨ, ߧchauguaߨ, ߧchauguasߨ ‘something; what?’; ߧteaguashߨ ‘money’, ߧteaguohߨ “mites [obv.]” [Mark 12:42]) ii. ‘how many’ [6] /t n k hs n/ ߧtan gasenߨ (“Combien”) < PEA *NƝK[ < PA *NH·Kș (> Mah /k x nah/ ߧk chcha n ߨ ‘how many (inan.)?’, Mun Np·[ΩQ ‘how many times?’, Np·[Ωի no·O ‘how many (inan.)?’, Mes NH·VHQZL ‘how many times?’; but Mass /ty hš-/ ‘how many?’,46 Loup A ߧchassetenߨ ‘how many times?’)
44. E.g., in /k kwan nt lihto/ ߧkag8an delittoߨ ‘I make something’ (“ie fait”). 45. The inde nite and interrogative inanimate pronoun is Un NpNX, Mun NZp·NZ, NZp·k, presumably affected by reduced stress in the sentence. 46. Mass ߧkutte hshohtómw ߨ ‘how many (indef. inan.) do you (pl.) have?’ 122 IVES GODDARD
Loup 6 is also the only SNEA language to retain nal *D\ in the singular of inanimate nouns (17). This was lost by regular sound change in most of SNEA (including presumably Loup 1 and Loup 2 in Loup A), while in Loup 3 *D\ was restructured as /- /, matching Western Abenaki /-a/ and Eastern Abenaki /-e/ (as if from PEA *ƝZ).47
(17) 5HWHQWLRQRI3($ D\LQLQDQLPDWHQRXQVLQ/RXS% /RXS i. ‘village’ [6] /ot nay/ ߧ8tannaiߨ (“vne ville”) < PEA *ǀWƝQD\ (> Mun o·Wp·QD\; Mah / t nay/ ߧotauniߨ; but WAb ߧodanaߨ, EAb yWHQH, Loup A /ot n/ ߧ8tenߨ [Loup 1], /ot n / ߧ8tenaߨ [Loup 3])48 ii. ‘bed’ [6] /apinay/ ߧapínaiߨ (“vn lit”) < PEA *DSƯQD\ < PA *DSLQD\L (> Mun ăSt·QD\, Mes DSLQD\L ‘living place (where one sits and sleeps on the platform in the lodge)’; but Mass /ap n/ ߧappinߨ ‘bed,’ pl. /ap nyaš/ ߧappinneashߨ, loc. /ap ny t/ ߧappinneatߨ)
THE DIALECTAL POSITION OF THE LOUP LANGUAGES IN SNEA
,QQRYDWLRQVDQG5HWHQWLRQV
When the innovations and retentions in the Loup languages are compared to those in other SNEA languages and other contiguous languages, the dialectal and spatial distribution of shared features can be determined (18).
(18) 'LVWULEXWLRQRIVHOHFWHGIHDWXUHVLQ/RXSDQGQHLJKERULQJODQJXDJHV i. Nasalization of PEA *Ɨ > / / (6) no: Munsee yes: Mahican, SNEA (Loup, Mass-Narr, etc.), Abenaki
47. Nouns in PEA *D\ and PEA *ƝZ both underwent contraction to PEA *Ɲ, for example in the locative, which would originally have had PEA *ƝQN for both form classes. In Unami the restructuring went in the opposite direction, and PEA *ƝZin the singular of inanimate nouns was replaced by /-ay/: Mun WΩ̗ QWH·Z‘ re’, but Un WΩ̗ QWD\. 48. Mathevet’s spelling of the Loup A words was probably in uenced by his knowledge of the Ojibwe cognate RRGHQD (cf. Old Algonquin ߧ8tenߨ, Old Ottawa ߧ8tena8ߨ); the interpretation of the plural ߧ8tenaixߨ ‘villages’ is uncertain. THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 123
ii. Lowering of PEA *Ɲ > / / (6) no: Munsee (except Wampano), EAb yes: Wampano, Mahican, SNEA, WAb iii. Palatalization of PEA *k (16) no: Munsee, Mahican, Loup B [Loup 6], Abenaki yes: Loup B [Loup 5], Loup A, Mass-Narr and other SNEA iv. Final voiced syllable lost (5iii, 7i, 7ii, 9ii, 12) no: Munsee, Mahican, Loup B [Loup 4, 6], Loup A [Loup 3], Abenaki yes: Loup B [Loup 5], Loup A [Loup 1, 2], Mass-Narr and other SNEA v. Re ex of PEA *r ((1), (2)) /r/, /l/ Munsee, Loup B (Loup 4), Loup A, some SNEA, Abenaki /n/ Mahican, Loup B (Loup 5, 6), some SNEA /y/ some Loup B (?), some SNEA vi. PEA *WǀQ (TI(2), sg. subject) (5ii) kept: Munsee, Loup B, some Loup A (Loup 3), Abenaki /-t n/: Mahican /-t n/: some Loup A (Loup 2?) /-taw n/: Quiripi, Mass-Narr vii. AI imperative /-h/ 2s replacing PEA *U (14) no: Munsee (/-l/) no: Loup B (Loup 5 /-s/; also 1x Loup 4 /-s/?), Loup A (Loup 1 or 2 /-s/); Mass-Narr (/-š/) yes: Mahican, Loup B (Loup 6; 1x Loup 4), Loup A (ca. 3x, Loup 3), Abenaki viii. AI suf x for 1p (2) /-m n/: Quiripi, Loup A (Loup 1), Narr, Mass /-m n /: Loup A (Loup 2, 3)49 ix. TA suf x for 1s-3p and 2s-3p ((3), (4)) /- (w)ak/ Mun, WMah, Loup A (Loup 2), Mass /- k/ EMah, Loup A (Loup 3), WAb
The data on the Loup languages are incomplete, although some gaps can be lled by reasonable inferences, and some loose ends remain, but it is possible to say a fair amount about their dialectal relationships with some con dence.
49. Because Loup 2 and Loup 3 both had /-n / 1p in the TA (3, 4) they must both have had /-m n / (which contains the same pronominal suf x) in the AI; the absence of separate AI paradigms may simply re ect the fact that they were identical. 124 IVES GODDARD
The Loup A verbal paradigms point clearly to the existence of three languages that had more typological diversity than Cree-Montagnais or Ojibwe-Potawatomi. Loup 1 was similar but not identical to Massachusett (18viii); Loup 3 shared a major restructuring with Eastern Mahican and Abenaki (18ix) but differed from both (18iii); and Loup 2 shared a unique innovation with Loup 3 (18viii), but not this major restructuring. This pat- tern of shared and differing features indicates that Loup 1 was a neighbor of Massachusett, Loup 3 was a neighbor of Eastern Mahican and (Western) Abenaki, and Loup 2 was in between. Of the Loup B languages, Loup 4 is identical to Loup 3 except perhaps for a single imperative form that has a shape that would make sense for Loup 1 or 2 ((14), (18vii)); there is probably a better explanation for this than the postulation of an additional language. Of the Loup B languages that have /n/ < PEA *r, Loup 6 shares with Mahican not only this feature, but also the non-palatalization of PEA *k (18iii) and some vocabulary items ((7iii), (15)). Loup 5, the other language with /n/ < PEA *r, must have been between Loup 6 and SNEA languages that lost nal voiced syllables ((7ii), (9ii)).50
0DSSLQJWKH/RXS'LDOHFWV6FKHPDWLFDOO\
The evidence for dialectal relationships permits the Loup languages to be mapped schematically in relation to each other and to their best known neighbors (19).
(19) 6FKHPDWLFPDSRIWKH/RXSODQJXDJHV W. Abenaki [3,4] [2] [1] Massachusett E. Mahican [6] [5]
The ve ostensible Loup languages must have been situated between Mahi- can on the west, Western Abenaki on the north, and Massachusett on the east. The more conservative Loup languages, Loup 3 (Loup 4) and Loup 6, which retained nal voiced syllables, were on the west, near languages that
50. The shift of PEA *r to /n/ in Massachusett but not the dialectally close Narragan- sett must necessarily be unrelated to the shift in Mahican and its Loup neighbors. This change has occurred repeatedly throughout the Algonquian family. THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 125 shared this feature. The most conservative of all, Loup 6 ((15), (17)), was necessarily next to Mahican. The one most like Massachusett, Loup 1, was on the east. Such a map provides a basis for understanding other cases of variation in the Loup materials, such as the many cases where one word or variant has a western or northern af nity (resembling Mahican or Abenaki, or both) and another has an eastern af nity, matching Massachusett (5).
THE ETHNIC IDENTITY OF THE LOUP SPEAKERS
The schematic linguistic map of the Loup languages (19) directly supports an identi cation of the ethnic groups that spoke them.
7KH3RFXPWXFN&RQIHGHUDF\
The Connecticut Valley of western Massachusetts and nearby Connecticut was the territory of the Pocumtuck Confederacy (Sheldon 1904; Johnson 1999:157).
(20) &RPSRQHQWVRIWKH3RFXPWXFN&RQIHGHUDF\ IURPQRUWKWRVRXWK Pocumtuck (Deer eld, Mass., and nearby) Norwottuck (Hadley and Northampton, Mass., and nearby) Agawam (Spring eld, Chicopee, and West Spring eld, Mass., and nearby) Woronoco and Pojassick (West eld River, Mass., west of East Mountain) Podunk (north of Hartford, Conn.) Tunxis (Farmington River, west of Hartford, Conn.)
To the west were the Eastern Mahican speakers of the upper Housatonic Valley. To the north were the Sokokis, speakers of Western Abenaki whose village Squakheag (North eld, Mass.) was just upriver from Pocumtuck. To the east were the Nipmucks, whose nearest village was at Quabaug (Brook eld, Mass.), and east of THEM were the Massachusetts. The Pocumtuck Confederacy comprised local village bands that (at least in the third quarter of the seventeenth century) formed an alliance that was headed by the Pocumtucks. The name, coined by Sheldon (1904), echoes a reference to them in 1659 as “the Pocuntucke Indians and theire Confederates” (Hazard 1794, 2:401) and Gookin’s (1792 [1674]) appar- ently inclusive use of the name “Pokomtakukes.” In 1657 and 1658 the confederacy had acted to defend the Podunks from the Mohegans (Hazard 126 IVES GODDARD
1792–1794, 2:384, 385, 396–423; De Forest 1851:253–256). In 1663 rep- resentatives of the confederacy asked the English trader John Pynchon to write to the Dutch authorities and convey their denial of any involvement in the killing of Mohawks by the Sokokis (Fernow 1881:308–309). In the letter those named as the senders include the otherwise unknown “Wissat- innewag,” who (on the assumption of basic internal consistency) are also referred to as “further down” and “farther South” (from the Agawams); these must then have been the Podunks or the Tunxis, or both.51 These joint actions and the consistent recognition of the Pocumtucks by the English as the leading group refute the sweeping claim of Thomas (1984:5) that “George Sheldon’s Pocumtuck Confederacy . . . never existed.” Thomas was particularly concerned to criticize historians for using the word “tribe” loosely rather than in a de ned ethnological sense (Thomas 1990:33–38), but this criticism is not an argument against using the term “confederacy” for an alliance of local village bands led but not dominated by one of them. This would be so even if the alliance were, as some Indian tribes were claimed to be, “episodic, . . . de ned [by] the intermittent coop- eration between communities to meet outside pressures” (Thomas 1984:5), but in the brief period during which these local bands were known there appears to be no time when they were NOT allied. All of the bands of the Pocumtuck Confederacy in Massachusetts left the area in 1674 and 1676, and they or their descendants mostly ended up in Canadian missions, including the St. Francis mission of the Western Abenakis (Day 1981; Goddard 2008:249). More research on exactly where these people were is desirable, but what is known is consistent with them being in places where Mathevet and Terlaye could have encountered them.
:RURQRFRDQG3RMDVVLFN
The people on the West eld River west of the ridge formed by East Mountain and Provin Mountain are now usually referred to simply as the
51. Bruchac and Thomas (2006; cf. Thomas 1990:245) argue that the “Wissatinnewag” were the Housatonics (elsewhere called by Pynchon “Ausatinnoag” and “Aossotinnoag”), but from the letter they were “obviously . . . in the upper Connecticut Valley” (Briden- baugh 1982:45–44), and there is no reason to think otherwise. THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 127
Woronoco (variants: Worrinoke, Woronoak, Woronoke), but a settlement called Pojassick (variants: Pochassic, Pochasuck, Pochaset) is also named in this area, and in fact the very last references to the Indians there (in 1669 and 1674) are to the Woronoco and Pojassick jointly.52 The exact locations are uncertain, but the ethnohistory and archaeology of the area are very poorly known. “Only one possible village site has been reported” from the historic period, the Guida Farm site just north of the West eld River where the Little River joins it (Zimmerman 1984:63), and this has been identi ed as Woronoco (Thomas 1990:6). Against this identi cation, however, is the fact that the 1660 deed conveying the “Lands at Worronoco” that included the Guida Farm site was con rmed in 1664 as being for land “at or neere the place called Worronoco” (Wright 1905:40, 41; Wright 1915), wording that implies that the land conveyed in 1660 did not include the village of Woronoco. Later mentions of Woronoco as if still existing in 1669 and 1674 appear to con rm this. (Alternate interpretations are conceivable but would require argument.) The 1660 deed refers to Pojassick (“Pochasuck”) as being up the West eld River (to the west), and Wright (1915) maps it as being about four miles upstream from where the Guida Farm is on the north side of the river, near the location of the later English community called Pochassic.53 The 1673 deed also refers to “the Old Fort on the South Side of the River,” which Wright (1915) locates on the bluff near where West eld State University now is.
52. “Woronoak & Pojassick” in 1669 (Wright 1905:69), “Woronoke and Pojassick” in 1674 (Day 1981:19; spelling normalized in Bridenbaugh 1982:124). Both names appear in the early land records as synonyms of West eld, the name of the English settlement south of the river, and this makes some references unclear. 53. Wright (1915) included a rough sketch map in a newspaper article that corrected the clearly erroneous interpretations of the 1660 deed and a 1673 conveyance of the abutting land upstream that he had given in his book (Wright 1905:41–43, 82–83). Wright’s map is reproduced by Lockwood (1922, 1: opp. p. 66). Thomas (1990:316), following Wright’s book, locates these sales incorrectly, putting the second one south of the river. (I am indebted to Cliff McCarthy of the Wood Museum of Spring eld History for the information on Wright’s article and map, and to Cher Collins and Jan Gryszkiewicz of the West eld Athenaeum for additional information and references.) 128 IVES GODDARD
7KH(WKQLF,GHQWL¿FDWLRQRIWKH/RXS/DQJXDJHV
If the schematic language map (19) is superimposed on the map of the local bands of the Pocumtuck Confederacy the best t is as in (21).
(21) %HVW¿WFRUUHVSRQGHQFHEHWZHHQ/RXSODQJXDJHVDQGNQRZQEDQGV /DQJXDJH %DQG )HDWXUHV Loup 1 Nipmuck /l/ < *r; verb endings most like Massachusett Loup 2 Norwottuck /l/ < *r; verb endings with Massachusett and Loup 3 characteristics Loup 3 and 4 Pocumtuck /l/ < *r; verb endings most like Western Abenaki Loup 5 Woronoco /n/ < *r (as in Mahican); nal syllable loss (as in Nipmuck) Loup 6 Pojassick /n/ < *r; lacks nal-syllable loss; loans from Mahican
Loup 1, the language most similar to Massachusett except for having /l/, can hardly be anything but Nipmuck.54 The other four, taking Loup 3 and 4 as the same thing, must be languages of the village bands of the Pocumtuck Confederacy. Of these, Loup 3 (Loup 4), which is most similar to Western Abenaki, can con dently be taken as the language of the Pocumtucks, near neighbors of the Abenaki-speaking Sokokis. Loup 2, which is linguisti- cally intermediate between Loup 1 and Loup 3, would then likely be the language of the Norwottucks (or possibly of the Agawams, or of both). The /n/-languages Loup 5 and Loup 6 must have been next to each other and adjacent to Mahican, and Loup 6, the one that was more conservative and more in uenced by Mahican, must have been in closer contact with it. If the Woronoco and the Pojassick were indeed separate bands on the West eld River, Loup 6 may have been the language of the upstream vil- lage, Pojassick (assuming its territories were further west and north), and Loup 5 may have been the language of the downstream village, Woronoco, wherever it was. The most tenuous component of the hypothesis in (21) is the location of the languages that had /n/ from PEA *r. One problem to be faced is the existence of names of people and places in the West eld area spelled with ߧrߨ and ߧlߨ, such as the name of Woronoco itself, which always seems
54. Gustafson (2000:5) argues that all of Loup A was “the Nipmuck language.” THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 129 to have ߧrߨ. The best evidence from placenames for the existence of at least one Connecticut Valley language with /n/ < PEA *r is the name of Norwottuck, which is found not only with ߧrߨ and ߧlߨ (e.g., ߧNalwotogߨ) but also several times with ߧnߨ (e.g., ߧNonotuckߨ, ߧNaunawtuckߨ).55 Signi cantly, these spellings always have just ߧnߨ for the cluster that is otherwise ߧrwߨ or ߧlwߨ; this shows that the variant form with /n/ was from a language that had lost the *Z from an original *UZ cluster (like Mahican) and could not simply have been the pronunciation in Massachusett, which retained /nw/ from *UZ. Putting an /n/-language at Norwottuck, however, would face the same dif culty, as several personal names from Hadley and Northampton have ߧlߨ (Wright 1905), and it would also leave the problem of where to locate Loup 2. The explanation for names with ߧrߨ and ߧlߨ in the West eld area may be that these were the pronunciations used by interpreters who spoke the language of Agawam, a few miles to the east, where the English rst settled and where ߧlߨ and ߧrߨ are found in names and words (Wright 1905; Day 1967). A comparable situation was found in New Amsterdam, where the interpreters who served the Dutch gave them names in Munsee for the sachems and villages on Long Island all the way to Montauk, on the eastern tip. Munsee was the language of Manhattan but was the local speech on Long Island only at the extreme western end. There are two words in the Loup A manuscript that have been dis- cussed as containing a possible clue to where the language they are in is from (Day 1975:52–59): ߧ8miskan8ag8iakߨ “Les Loups”; ߧnimiskan8ag8iߨ “Je suis de la nation loupe” (‘I am a Loup’). There is a note of explana- tion: “On les appelle ainsi a cause qu’ils ont leur village sur le bord d’une terre fort elevée.” (‘They are so called because they have their village on the edge of an area of very high ground.’) Day argued at length that Loup ߧ8miskan8ag8iakߨ could be the equivalent of a Western Abenaki ߧamisk- wôlowôkoiakߨ “beaver tail hill people” (Day 1994:38); this word, which evidently existed only as a conjectural explanation of the Loup words, was
55. Wright (1905:28) lists some of the variants of the name. Sheldon (1904:78) cites “Naunawtucks” as used by William Pynchon in 1648. There is no reason to believe that the variants are not of local origin; the statements that “Nalwotog” has a distinctive “Wampanoag ending” and that “Nonotuck” is “in Western Abenaki dialect” (Bruchac 2007:20, n. 50) are incorrect. 130 IVES GODDARD connected to an “Indian tradition,” ostensibly heard locally by George Shel- don, that Pocumtuck Mountain was the remains of a giant beaver slain by a culture hero. It is probably best not to rely on this conjecture as supporting the dialectological evidence that one of the Loup A languages was very likely spoken at Pocumtuck.56 It seems unlikely that a linguist as skilled and as careful as Mathevet was could have misheard so many parts of a word so badly and made the same mistakes twice: missing the /w/ of a prevocalic /kw/ and the nasalized vowels, hearing the /l/ as [n], and using ߧgߨ to write the cognate of the tense, voiceless, and probably long consonant in the medial WAb ߧ-ôk-ߨ ‘hill’ (cf. EAb ĮNN). In fact, Loup A ߧ-an8ag-ߨ is probably /- wak-/ ‘hill’, the expected cognate of the Old Munsee /-a·wank-/ attested in placenames (e.g., ߧKichtawanckߨ /kiht ·wank/ ‘*great bank’; Goddard 1971:19),57 and a more distant correspondent of the Abenaki medial, which has been reshaped as if from *ƗZDKN (incorporat- ing *DKN ‘earth’). Although Loup A ߧmisk-ߨ has no obvious cognate there is no reason to doubt Mathevet’s gloss as “very high,” or to think that this spells a putative Loup */am skw/ ‘beaver’ (cf. EAb SiODPΩVNZ ‘young adult beaver’ [initial: PA *SDș ‘almost’]). The /w -/ ߧ8-ߨ present in one form is readily explained as the pre x used optionally in deriving ethnic names.58 And, in any event, Mathevet’s phrase “they have their village” (present tense) would be an odd way to refer to where some of the speakers he interviewed had lived three-quarters of a century earlier.
56. Gustafson (2000:3–5) also criticizes this claim, but her argument that Loup A could not have been Pocumtuck because there are no Indian placenames with ߧlߨ west of the Connecticut River misconstrues an observation of mine that applied only to names in Connecticut. Placenames and personal names with ߧlߨ are found in deeds from Pocumtuck (Wright 1905). 57. Cf. Un D·эQN‘bank’ (< *ƗZDQN; also Un D·эQNZ) and Mes D·ZDN‘earth, soil’ (Mes PHKWD·ZDNL‘on the ground’), con rming PA *D·ZDQN; reshaped in modern Mun D·ZΩQN(e.g., Mun ZD[NL·ta·ZΩ̗ QNΩ‘on top of the hill’). 58. Algonquian ethnonyms could be derived from toponyms or the descriptions of places or landmarks by adding to a noun stem a noun-forming suf x PA *L·Z(> PEA *ƯZ), which combines with &Zas PA *&R·Z(> PEA *&ǀZ), and optionally pre xing PA *ZH W (> PEA *ZΩ W ), a homophone of the third person pre x (Goddard in Goddard and Bragdon 1988:578; Goddard 2010 n. 2). THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 131
(WKQRORJLFDO,PSOLFDWLRQV
The fact that at least four distinct languages were spoken by the bands of the Pocumtuck Confederacy in Massachusetts has ethnological implications. There is general agreement among the archaeologists who have worked in the upper Connecticut Valley that the local groups were “politically autonomous” (Johnson and Bradley 1987:17), and that Salwen’s (1978:164) general description of the Indians of southern New England applies to them: “The basic face-to-face unit of population appears to have been the ‘village,’ . . . a social unit utilizing the resources of a limited territory” (cf. Thomas 1984:5; Johnson 1993:30; Chilton 1999:163). The linguistic diversity is not merely consistent with this conventional description, it is in fact a strong indicator that the village bands must have remained rela- tively stable and distinct over a considerable period of time. Somewhat inconsistently, however, Chilton (2005:150, 2010:98; cf. Chilton 2012:269) has claimed that a diversity of ceramic attributes in the area indicates that these villages had “ uid social and political boundaries,” and that “colonists and ethnohistorians” have been wrong in thinking that there were “distinct Native communities or tribes in western Massachusetts,” although the argu- ment and the supporting data have not been presented in detail. The two ostensibly opposing characterizations of these village bands can perhaps be reconciled by thinking of the social boundaries as merely porous rather than completely “ uid.” Exogamous marriages by women could have been frequent enough to result in the diffusion of ceramic features, and village identity could have been strong and stable enough to maintain the distinct- ness of the local forms of speech. A possible ethnographic parallel to this situation is provided by the Sui people of Guizhou Province in China, who maintain distinct local dialects and strong dialect loyalty despite practicing patrilocal clan exogamy. An in-marrying woman typically continues to use only her original dialect, while her husband and, from a rather young age, their children use the local village dialect, without accommodation in either direction (Stanford 2009). In any event, there is nothing to support the speculation that the fact that these village bands were referred to by “Algonquian locative words rather than words describing people raises the question whether these are indeed separate ‘tribes’ or one large related group” (Chilton 2005:150; cf. 132 IVES GODDARD
Chilton 2010:99). Algonquian names for political units of all sizes are quite commonly based on placenames, and no study of ethnonyms has shown, or would likely show, that groups named for places tend not to be “separate” from each other.59 Thomas (1990:36) seems to argue conversely that the existence of ethnonyms based on toponyms should prompt “caution . . . in de ning supra-village units,” but his examples (the Narragansetts and the Massachusetts) leave the point unclear. The tenacity of the separate identities of the village bands of the Pocumtuck Confederacy is demonstrated by the fact that their distinct forms of speech were remembered three-quarters of a century after they had left their separate villages to live cheek-by-jowl with each other and other refu- gees in Schaghticoke, New York, and other ethnically mixed settlements. Still, further research into the communities the speakers had been living in would be desirable to clarify how it was possible for knowledge of their languages to survive so long. And in general the exact locations of these groups at different dates throughout their known history remain to be explicitly described and documented in detail.
MAPPING THE SNEA LANGUAGES
The map given here of the languages and dialects of Southern New Eng- land Algonquian (on page 134) incorporates features selectively from earlier maps (Speck 1928a: Pl. 20; Speck 1928b: Pl. 1; Salwen 1978:161; Costa 2007:82, 108). The geographical placement of the linguistic boundaries is in many areas conventional or conjectural, following ethnic boundaries that have been proposed. Question marks indicate the ones that are especially uncertain. The distinction between language boundaries (solid lines) and dialect boundaries (dashed lines) is also inherently imprecise, and even more
59. Williams (1643:leaf A 3, verso) lists seven southern New England ethnonyms derived from placenames by the suf x /- / (< PEA *ƯZ; see n. 58) and in ected with /-ak/ anim. pl. English speakers collapsed this distinction and in most cases simply used the placename as an ethnonym. THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 133 so given the dearth of data in many areas. Despite the thinness of the data, however, it is clear that these languages, though closely related, present an overall picture of considerable local diversity. Not only are there many languages, by any measure, but languages, ostensible dialects, and sources typically show internal variation, as Costa (2007) has documented in detail. On the map, the name Wangunk (De Forest 1851:54) is used for the language that has /y/ < PEA *r in Abraham Pierson’s 1658 catechism; this is the same as what Costa (2007:116–119) proposed to call Mattabesec. Words in the catechism with more northerly af nities can also be assigned to this language.60 The Matinecock and Massapequa bands are presumed to have been the original speakers of the component of Thomas Jefferson’s 1791 Unquachog vocabulary that has /r/ < PEA *r and loanwords from Munsee (Costa 2007:119–122). The use of Munsee forms of these names in Dutch documents does not re ect the language of these bands, as earlier thought (Goddard 1971:18), but merely the use of Munsee by the interpret- ers. The boundary between Munsee and SNEA on Long Island is based on the ethnohistorical research of Ted J. Brasser (Levine and Bonvillain 1980:161) con rmed by the analysis of a few place and personal names (Goddard 2011:300). Wampano is placed at Weantinock (New Milford, Conn.), where its last known speakers had a village until 1736, but it must have been found over a larger area a century earlier, when the Dutch described “Wappanoo” as one of the main language groups of New Netherland, the one spoken northeast of Manhattan (Van der Donck 2008:94). The map includes the names of some local bands that have gured in discussions of language boundaries; those that cannot be linguistically identi ed are in brackets. Other local ethnic names that are not germane here have been omitted.
60. There is no third Quiripi language, as claimed in Goddard 2008:308, n. 88. The verb forms with /-( )s/ have a preterit suf x.
THE “LOUP” LANGUAGES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 135
REFERENCES
Brasser, T. J. 1978. Mahican. +DQGERRN RI 1RUWK $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQV 1RUWKHDVW 9RO 15, ed. by Bruce Trigger, pp. 198–212. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Bridenbaugh, Carl, ed. 1982. 7KH3\QFKRQSDSHUV /HWWHUVRI-RKQ3\QFKRQ±. Boston: The Colonial Society of Massachusetts. Bruchac, Margaret M. 2007. Historical erasure and cultural recovery: Indigenous people in the Connecticut River Valley. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Bruchac, Margaret, and Peter Thomas. 2006. Locating “Wissatinnewag” in John Pyn- chon’s letter of 1663. +LVWRULFDO-RXUQDORI0DVVDFKXVHWWV34.1:56–82. Catlin, George. 1841. /HWWHUVDQGQRWHVRQWKHPDQQHUVFXVWRPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRIWKH 1RUWK$PHULFDQ,QGLDQV London: Published by the author. Chilton, Elizabeth S. 1999. Mobile farmers of pre-contact southern New England: The archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence. &XUUHQW1RUWKHDVWSDOHRHWKQRERWDQ\, ed. by John P. Hart, pp. 157–176. Albany: New York State Education Department. Chilton, Elizabeth S. 2005. Farming and social complexity in New England. North $PHULFDQDUFKDHRORJ\, ed. by Timothy R. Pauketat, and Diana DiPaolo Loren, pp. 138–160. Blackwell Press, Studies in Global Archaeology Series. Chilton, Elizabeth S. 2010. Mobile farmers and sedentary models: Horticulture and cultural transitions in Late Woodland and Contact period New England. $QFLHQW FRPSOH[LWLHV 1HZSHUVSHFWLYHVLQ3UH&ROXPELDQ1RUWK$PHULFD, ed. by Susan Alt, pp. 96–103. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Chilton, Elizabeth S. 2012. New England Algonquians: Navigating “backwaters” and typological boundaries. 7KH2[IRUGKDQGERRNRI1RUWK$PHULFDQDUFKDHRORJ\, ed. by Timothy R. Pauketat, pp. 262–272. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Costa, David J. 2007. The dialectology of Southern New England Algonquian. 3DSHUV RI WKH WK$OJRQTXLDQ &RQIHUHQFH, ed. by H. C. Wolfart, pp. 81–127. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba. Cuoq, Jean-André. 1886. /H[LTXHGHODODQJXHDOJRQTXLQH Montreal: J. Chapleau & Fils. Day, Gordon M. 1967. An Agawam fragment. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDO RI $PHULFDQ /LQ JXLVWLFV 33:244–247. Day, Gordon M. 1969. The Indian languages of the upper Connecticut Valley. 7KH&RQ QHFWLFXW 9DOOH\ ,QGLDQ $Q LQWURGXFWLRQ WR WKHLU DUFKDHRORJ\ DQG KLVWRU\, ed. by William R. Young, pp. 74–79. Spring eld, MA: Spring eld Museum of Science. Day, Gordon M. 1975. 7KH Mots loups RI)DWKHU0DWKHYHW. National Museums of Canada Publications in Ethnology 8. Ottawa. Day, Gordon M. 1981. 7KH LGHQWLW\ RI WKH 6DLQW )UDQFLV ,QGLDQV. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. (Nation Museum of Man, Mercury Series 78.) Day, Gordon M. 1994. :HVWHUQ $EHQDNL GLFWLRQDU\ YROXPH $EHQDNL(QJOLVK. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization. De Forest, John W. 1851. +LVWRU\RIWKH,QGLDQVRI&RQQHFWLFXWIURPWKHHDUOLHVWNQRZQ SHULRGWR. Hartford, CT: Wm. Jas. Hamersley. Eliot, John. 1666. 7KH,QGLDQJUDPPDUEHJXQ. Cambridge, MA: Marmaduke Johnson. Fernow, Berthold, ed. 1881. 'RFXPHQWV UHODWLQJ WR WKH KLVWRU\ DQG VHWWOHPHQWV RI WKH WRZQV DORQJ WKH +XGVRQ DQG 0RKDZN ULYHUV ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI$OEDQ\ IURP 136 IVES GODDARD
WR. (Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New York 13.) Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons. Goddard, Ives. 1971. The ethnohistorical implications of early Delaware linguistic mate- rials. 0DQLQWKH1RUWKHDVW 1:14–26. Goddard, Ives. 1978. Eastern Algonquian languages. +DQGERRN RI 1RUWK $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQV 1RUWKHDVW 9RO , ed. by Bruce Trigger, pp. 70–77. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Goddard, Ives. 1979. 'HODZDUHYHUEDOPRUSKRORJ\ $GHVFULSWLYHDQGFRPSDUDWLYHVWXG\ New York: Garland Publishing. Goddard, Ives. 1997. Pidgin Delaware. &RQWDFWODQJXDJHV $ZLGHUSHUVSHFWLYH, ed. by Sarah G. Thomason, pp. 43–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goddard, Ives. 2003a. Reconstructing the history of the demonstrative pronouns of Algonquian. (VVD\V LQ $OJRQTXLDQ &DWDZEDQ DQG 6LRXDQ OLQJXLVWLFV LQ PHPRU\ RI )UDQN 7 6LHEHUW -U, ed. by Blair A. Rudes, and David J. Costa, pp. 37–102. Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics Memoir 16. Goddard, Ives. 2003b. Heckewelder’s 1792 vocabulary from Ohio: A possible attestation of Mascouten. 3DSHUV RI WKH WK $OJRQTXLDQ &RQIHUHQFH, ed. by H. C. Wolfart, pp. 165–192. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Goddard, Ives. 2007. Reconstruction and history of the independent indicative. 3DSHUV RIWKHWK$OJRQTXLDQ&RQIHUHQFH, ed. by H. C. Wolfart, pp. 207–271. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba. Goddard, Ives. 2008. Notes on Mahican: Dialects, sources, phonemes, enclitics, and analogies. 3DSHUV RI WKH WK $OJRQTXLDQ &RQIHUHQFH, ed. by Karl S. Hele, and Regna Darnell, pp. 246–315. London, Ontario: The University of Western Ontario. Goddard, Ives. 2010. Linguistic variation in a small speech community: The personal dialects of Moraviantown Delaware. $QWKURSRORJLFDO/LQJXLVWLFV 52:1–48. Goddard, Ives. 2011. Review of )LUVW0DQKDWWDQV $EULHIKLVWRU\RIWKH0XQVHH,QGLDQV by Robert S. Grumet. 1HZ Johnson, Eric S. 1993. “Some by atteries and others by threatenings”: Political strate- gies among Native Americans of seventeenth-century southern New England. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Johnson, Eric S. 1999. Community and confederation: A political geography of Contact period southern New England. 7KH DUFKDHRORJLFDO 1RUWKHDVW, ed. by Mary Ann Levine, Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Michael S. Nassaney, pp. 155–168. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Johnson, Eric S., and James W. Bradley. 1987. The Bark Wigwams site: An early seven- teenth-century component in central Massachusetts. 0DQLQWKH1RUWKHDVW 33:1–26. Jones, Electa F. 1854. 6WRFNEULGJHSDVWDQGSUHVHQW. Spring eld, MA: S. Bowles & Co. LeSourd, Philip. 2004. Western Abenaki phonology problem IV: h in Joseph Laurent’s dialect. $OJRQTXLDQDQG,URTXRLDQ/LQJXLVWLFV 29:11–13. LeSourd, Philip. 2015. Enclitic particles in Western Abenaki: Form and function. ,QWHU QDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI$PHULFDQ/LQJXLVWLFV 81:301–335. Levine, Gaynell Stone, and Nancy Bonvillain. 1980. /DQJXDJHV DQG ORUH RI WKH /RQJ ,VODQG,QGLDQV. Lexington, MA: Ginn Custom Publishing. Lockwood, John Hoyt. 1922. :HVW¿HOGDQGLWVKLVWRULFLQÀXHQFHV ± . [West eld, MA: For the author.] [Magon de Terlaye, François-Auguste.] [1755?] Langue de[s] Loups. Manuscript in Archives du Séminaire de Saint-Sulpice de Montréal. (Film MLI-6, Canadian Micro- lming Company, Montreal; copy in American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.) Masthay, Carl. 1980. 0DKLFDQ ODQJXDJH K\PQV ELEOLFDO SURVH DQG YRFDEXODULHV IURP 0RUDYLDQVRXUFHVZLWK0RKDZNK\PQV WUDQVFULSWLRQDQGWUDQVODWLRQ . St. Louis, MO: The Author. Mithun, Marianne. 1979. Iroquoian. 7KH ODQJXDJHV RI 1DWLYH $PHULFD, ed. by Lyle Campbell, and Marianne Mithun, pp. 133–212. Austin: University of Texas Press. Morse, Jedidiah. 1824. 7KH ¿UVW DQQXDO UHSRUW RI WKH $PHULFDQ 6RFLHW\ IRU 3URPRWLQJ WKH&LYLOL]DWLRQDQG*HQHUDO,PSURYHPHQWRIWKH,QGLDQ7ULEHVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV. New Haven, CT. [facsimile reprint, Milwood, NY: Kraus Reprint Co., 1975] Rhodes, Richard A., and David J. Costa. 2007. The history of Algonquian number words. (VVD\V LQ $OJRQTXLDQ &DWDZEDQ DQG 6LRXDQ OLQJXLVWLFV LQ PHPRU\ RI )UDQN 7 6LHEHUW -U, ed. by Blair A. Rudes and David J. Costa, pp. 181–215. Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics Memoir 16. Salwen, Bert. 1978. Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early period. +DQGERRNRI1RUWK$PHULFDQ,QGLDQV 1RUWKHDVW9RO, ed. by Bruce Trigger, pp. 160–176. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Sheldon, George. 1904. The Pocumtuck Confederacy. 3DSHUV DQG SURFHHGLQJV RI WKH &RQQHFWLFXW9DOOH\+LVWRULFDO6RFLHW\± , 2:78–99. Speck, Frank G. 1928a. Native tribes and dialects of Connecticut, a Mohegan-Pequot diary. )RUW\7KLUG$QQXDO5HSRUWRIWKH%XUHDXRI$PHULFDQ(WKQRORJ\ ± 6, pp. 199–287. Washington, DC: G.P.O. Speck, Frank G. 1928b. 7HUULWRULDO VXEGLYLVLRQV DQG ERXQGDULHV RI WKH :DPSDQRDJ 0DVVDFKXVHWW DQG 1DXVHW ,QGLDQV. Indian Notes and Monographs 44. New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. 138 IVES GODDARD Stanford, James N. 2009. “Eating the food of our place”: Sociolinguistic loyalties in multidialectal Sui villages. /DQJXDJHLQ6RFLHW\ 38:287–309. Thomas, Peter A. 1984. Bridging the cultural gap: Indian/White relations. (DUO\VHWWOH PHQWLQWKH&RQQHFWLFXW9DOOH\, ed. by John W. Ifkovic, and Martin Kaufman, pp. 5–21. Historic Deer eld Inc., West eld State College. Thomas, Peter A. 1990. ,Q WKH PDHOVWURP RI FKDQJH 7KH ,QGLDQ WUDGH DQG FXOWXUDO SURFHVVLQWKHPLGGOH&RQQHFWLFXW5LYHU9DOOH\±. New York: Garland. Van der Donck, Adriaen. 2008. $ GHVFULSWLRQ RI 1HZ 1HWKHUODQG, ed. by Charles T. Gehring, and William A. Starna. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Williams, Roger. 1643. $NH\LQWRWKHODQJXDJHRI$PHULFD. London. Witte, Stephen S., and Marsha V. Gallagher. 2008. 7KH 1RUWK $PHULFDQ -RXUQDOV RI 3ULQFH0D[LPLOLDQRI:HLGYROXPH0D\±$SULO. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wright, Harry Andrew. 1905. ,QGLDQGHHGVRI+DPSGHQ&RXQW\. Spring eld, MA. Wright, Harry Andrew. 1915. Indians of West eld and Valley neighbors. 7KH6SULQJ¿HOG 6XQGD\5HSXEOLFDQ, July 18, 1915, p. 14. Zimmerman, Sarah, Neill DePaoli, Arthur J. Krim, Peter Stott, James W. Bradley. 1984. +LVWRULF DQG DUFKDHRORJLFDO UHVRXUFHV RI WKH &RQQHFWLFXW 9DOOH\ Boston: Massa- chusetts Historical Commission.