This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 26 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK
The Mayan Languages
Judith Aissen, Nora C. England, Roberto Zavala Maldonado
Mayan History and Comparison
Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 Lyle Campbell Published online on: 18 May 2017
How to cite :- Lyle Campbell. 18 May 2017, Mayan History and Comparison from: The Mayan Languages Routledge Accessed on: 26 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315192345.ch3
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT
Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms
This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 most part. the for view, consensus the represents still (1985) Kaufman and Campbell recon- in PM struction of view The below). see 2003; Justeson with Kaufman 1984; Norman and Kaufman 1964, 1969, 1976, 1990; Campbell 1977:89–90, 97–101, 1988:6–12; Kaufman Several PM phonemes postulated by McQuown were eliminated in later refinements (see McQuown (1955, 1956) is credited as founder of modern Mayan comparative linguistics. ofseveral reconstruction real Proto-Mayan sounds.(Proto-Mayanishenceforth abbreviated PM.) OftenNorman first the and correspondences sound of set (1942) ern’s of thecloseconnectionbetweenHuastecandChicomuseltec; and Abraham M.Halp- classification 1872) confirmation his and classification (1870, correspondences; (1939) Kroeber’ssound Alfred and Charencey’s de Comte Gouhier Charles-Félix-Hyacinthe word lists,andpostulationofsoundcorrespondencessome regularsoundchanges; comparative classification, Stoll’s 1885) Otto (1884, classification; and materials of tion collec Berendts’s(1876) Hermann Karl were reconstruction and comparison Mayan of and “notalittle words, of theirgrammatical structure.” Somehighlightsinthehistory Pocoman [Poqomam] are related”; his evidence included number words, many other [Yucatec[Q’eqchi’], Maya],Cakchi languages “the that world’sreported the languages of catalogue his in (1800:304) seen inthe“daughtersofLatin” (the Romancelanguages).Lorenzo HervásyPanduro the languages toberelated in this waywasnomiracle, since that kind ofrelationship is for that remarked He [Poqomchi’]. Poq’omchi, and [Q’eqchi’], Q’aq’chi [Kaqchikel], Q’aq’chiquel [Itzaj], Peten Lacandón, [Tojolabal],[Mam], Chanabal Mame tal], Coxoh, ily relationship among many of theMayanlanguages, Tzotzil [Tsotsil], Zendal [Tsel - sources. Forexample, FranciscoXiménez (1702:1) hadaclear understanding ofthefam- Relationships among Mayanlanguageswererecognized 2 the familyasawhole. tions I prove rewarding. While each language has itsowncomplex history, duetospacelimita ative The intention ofthischapteristopresentanoverviewMayanhistoricalandcompar 1 Lyle Campbell AND COMPARISON MAYAN HISTORY CHAPTER 3
BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION linguistics and to point to areas where further investigation and freshthinking may Mayan historyandcomparison Lyle Campbell
concentrate on aspectsofMayanreconstruction and linguistic changesrelevant to 1 Poconchi [Poqomchi’],Cakchiquil [Kaqchikel]and already inSpanishcolonial Maya - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 did notdisappear, butratherwastheancestortooneormoreofmodernCh’olan the languageofMayahieroglyphicwritingisalsolistedasextinct,althoughitprobably are highly endangered, for example Itzaj (Itzá) and Mocho’ (Motozintleco). Sometimes and thoseinMexicothespellingsofINALI(2009). mendations of the Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (http://www.almg.org.gt/), family is given in Table the of classification accepted widely most The languages. Mayan thirty some are There 3 Mayan historicallinguisticadvancesyettocome. facilitated comparison andreconstruction, and providesarichneededfoundationfor with dictionaries and grammars now available for most of the languages. This has greatly 44
The only extinct Mayan languages are Chicomuseltec and Choltí, though some others Note thatthe spelling of the names ofMayanlanguages in Guatemala follows recom CLASSIFICA The documentation of Mayanlanguages has increased dramatically since the1980s, L yle C ampbell Core Mayan(CentralMayan) Huastecan TABLE 3.1 TION Western Mayan Yucatecan Huastec, Chicomuseltec K’ichean-Mamean (EasternMayan)
CLASSIFICATION OF 3.1 (degree Greater Q’anjob’alan(Q’anjob’alan-Chujean) Cholan-Tseltalan Itzaj (Itzá,Itza’),Mopan Maya (Yucatec Maya),Lacandón Mamean K’ichean Chuj-Tojolabal Q’anjob’alan Tseltalan Cholan Awakatek, Ixil Mam, Tektitek(Teko) Central K’ichean(K’icheanProper) Poqom Uspantek Q’eqchi’ of indentation corresponds to degree of relatedness). Chuj, Tojolabal(Tojol-ab’al) Mocho’ (Motozintlec)(with Tuzantec) Q’anjob’al, Akatek, Jakaltek(Popti’) Tseltal, Tsotsil Choltí (extinct),Ch’orti’ Ch’ol, Chontal(Yokot’an) Sipakapense Sakapultek Kaqchikel, Tz’utujil K’iche’ Poqomam, Poqomchi’ THE MAYAN LANGUAGES - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 talan Kaufman (1972), and for Yucatecanfor (1973). and A Fisher (1972), Kaufman talan Norman (1984), for K’ichean Campbell (1977), for Huastecan Norcliffe (2003), for Tsel- tions toMayanhistorical linguistics generally, forexample, for Ch’olan Kaufmanand environments indifferent branchesofthe family(seeJustesonet but rather took place independently at distinct times in slightly varying phonological shared soundchanges in several of the languages that they were notsharedinnovations independent parallel developments. For example, it isclearfromseveral oftheseemingly must beduetolanguagecontactafterHuastecanhadseparated fromtheothersorto it shareswithCh’olan-Tseltalan and Yucatecan, including some sharedsoundchanges, split awayfromthemforaconsiderabletime. This meansthatseveralofthesimilarities ferent fromtheotherMayanlanguages,itseemshighlyprobable that it hasindeedbeen son 1977,1992;Law2014).Nevertheless,Huastecangrammar and lexicon are sodif- Robert- 1977:100–1; Campbell instance for (see subgroup single a in together classified Ch’olan-Tseltalan and with Yucatecan, it was sometimes thought these groups should be sion area (see§8).Forexample, because Huastecansharesseveralsoundchangeswith rowing inthe Greater Lowland Mayan Linguistic Area andinthe Huehuetenango diffu- subgrouping) from changes shared due to diffusion across language boundaries, as for example, bor of evidence reliable only (the innovations shared distinguish to difficult ars’ confusionoversomediffused characteristics among Mayanlanguages,makingit (Eastern Kaufman 1990,thisvolume). Mamean and 1985; Kaufman and Campbell K’ichean (See branch. single a confirmed. in together belong completely clearly Mayan) been never has Mayan), Western this called (sometimes though branch single a in together belong Q’anjob’alan into distinct branches. Ithasgenerally been accepted that Ch’olan-Tseltalan and Greater Next, Yucatecan branched off, andlatertheremaining Core Mayangroupsseparated view holds that the Huastecan branch was the first to separate from the rest of the family. Ch’olan-Tseltalan (Law2014forasurveyofopinions). The mostgenerallyaccepted to or Q’anjob’alan Greater to belongs Tojolabalwhether about differed have Opinions Eastern Mayan (Mamean-K’ichean) are clear and for the most part uncontroversial. groupings The endangered. Mocho’ tomeritinvestigation.Unfortunately, bothMocho’ and Tuzantec arecritically from different sufficiently is it status, its Whatever language. separate a Mocho’or of ties in Guatemala. Finally, ithasnever been resolved whether Tuzantec is a dialect a variety of Awakatek, not distinct languages, though recognized as distinct ethnic enti- Mayan languages,thoughhere Achi isconsideredavarietyofK’iche’ andChalchiteko Tektitek(Teko) and (Kaufman 1969, 1975). Sometimes Sipakapense, Achi and Chalchiteko are listed as Sakapultek, additional Akatek, 1965: since family the to added been argue thatitwasprobablya dialect of Tseltal. NewlydiscoveredMayanlanguageshave Chiapas, maybeanotherextinctMayanlanguage,thoughCampbellandGardner(1988) into modernRomancelanguages).Coxoh,muchtalkedaboutincolonialsourcesfrom languages into which it evolved (much as Latin did not become extinct but evolved whether somepotentialcognates areactuallyloanwordsinstead. Ch’olan-Tseltalan, and wouldhelpto determine which traits are due to areal diffusion and issues, particularly that ofdisputed Tojolabal and uncertain broader connectionswith subgrouping clarify doubt no would and needed much is subgroup Q’anjob’alan Greater Comparative Any uncertainties about aspects of Mayan subgrouping may be due to some schol- The most generally accepted view of the Mayan subgrouping is presented in Table work dedicated to individual subgroups has made significant contribu significant made has subgroups individual to dedicated work usea, uaea, hoa-slaa, rae Qajbaa, and Q’anjob’alan, Greater Ch’olan-Tseltalan, Yucatecan, Huastecan, M ayan
history
serious reconstruction serious
al. 1985). and
comp arison of the of
3.1. 45 - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 C shouldbeunderstoodasoptional,()VC,V:C, (C)VC first the forms, canonical conventional the in Thus, morphemes. vowel-initial had also it isclear thatnotallMayanmorphemesshouldbeconsideredconsonant-initial, that PM attach to vowel-initial roots distinct from thesetthat attaches to consonant-initial forms, Proto-Mayan has a different set of possessiveand ergative pronominal markers that appear tobevowel-initial instead beganwithaglottal stop astheironset.However, since Kaufman’s canonical shapes, whichhaveinitialCunderthebeliefthatthosemight consonant isinfactoptional. That is,traditionally Mayanists havefollowed Terrence consonant cluster was limited to h, and ejective Nevertheless, somescholarsexpectsymmetryandsowouldreconstructitasavoiceless voiceless allophone syllable finally) a with (possibly ([ɓ]) imploded was attention. For example, it seems secure that PM *b’ the phonetic content of these as well as that of someother sounds that have not received has notgonewithoutquestion,andfutureresearchoughttoinvestigate of thesounds (canonical forms) mentioned, As 4 46 of PMgivenin Table *ə could be eliminated (see below). These refinements resulted in the phonemic inventory distinguished PM that showing by further reconstruction the refined McQuown’s and nocomplete series ofpalatalized sounds,andthat velars labialized no had PM that PM, to belong not did contrast tonal McQuown’s that showing by example, for ways, several in reconstruction this refined 1976) 1969, (1964, nemes asthepointofdepartureformodernMayancomparative linguistics. Kaufman that Kaufmansometimesinterprets , some Mayan languages underwent a conditioned sound change which series, labial*b’,someMayanlanguagesunderwentaconditionedsoundchange which making PMwithanimploded 1973a), Campbell 1970; Greenberg (see ([ɓ]) implosive bilabial the i.e. position, labial ejective sounds, andifglottalic series haveanyimplosive sounds, thesetendtofavorthe to haveaglottalic serieswhichcombinessomeimplosive sounds together with some *k’,
Most Mayanmorphemesaremonosyllabic, While this reconstruction is accepted by most scholars, the phonetic nature of some RECONSTRUCTION Although PM is typically reconstructed with only a single imploded sound in its glottalic Although PMistypicallyreconstructedwithonlyasingleimploded soundinitsglottalic L *q’), whichareassumedtobeejective. However, itisnotunusualforlanguages yle C ampbell *p’ to match the other consonants of the glottalic series (*t’, *p’ (seebelowinthissection for discussionofthese).Campbell (1977:89) many take Norman McQuown’s (1955, 1956) reconstruction of PM pho- PM of McQuown’sreconstruction Norman 1956) take (1955, many t t p TABLE 3.2 ’t t w t’ b’ n m CVC,
3.2 (seeCampbellandKaufman1985). u o a e V: (vowellength) i s r l CV:C,
PROTO-MA ɓ notatallunusual. CVC y’ y CV Ɂ, orafricative
– 1 its reflexes are imploded in most of the languages. C 1 2 ɁV , and YAN PHONEMES ts’ ts 1 C asequivalentto CV and PMhadthepossiblesyllableshapes x y š č’ č 1 ɁV s, 1 C, where in š, orx.Ineach ofthese,theinitial ’q’ q k’ k ŋ *b’ (imploded b)shouldreplace CV: ɁC. 1 C 2 , and(C)V CVC *r from*y,andthat h Ɂ 2 1 C 2 the *t 1 ɁV y ’, C 1 *ts, C. Note 1 of the *č’, Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 correspondence: for serious doubt that it was a velar nasal in PM. The reconstruction is based on the sound basis little be to seems there Nevertheless, 1978). Fox (cf. subgroups some in reflexes sal esized thatallimplodedsoundsmustbevoiced;thisclaimhadtoabandoned. the voiceless imploded uvular stop inK’ichean languages became known, it was hypoth- 1973a). (Campbell revised be to universal implicational proposed of facts the until Also, /ɗ/). The imploded uvular in the glottalic series of these Mayan languages has forced this anything for soundsfurther back in the mouth, so the language could have either /t’/ or imply not does /ɓ/ of presence the though /p’/), not (and /ɓ/ implies /ɗ/ of presence the articulations further towardsthefrontofmouthshouldalsobeimploded (for example, articulation further backinthe mouth implies that the members of the series atpointsof universal, thatintheglottalic series thepresenceofanimploded sound atanypointof it is possible Pinkerton example, for (see, [qˁ] 1986; England 1983). languages), Based on the the number of languages of in which this several sound is imploded, in well as positions other syllable-initial /q’/ is phonetically a voiceless imploded uvular stop (and imploded in ter may profit from closer consideration. In most of the K’ichean and Mamean languages, thought to have been a voiceless ejective uvular stop in PM. However, its phonetic charac with its seeming suggestion that sound changes need not be regular (p.51), will be disputed. consonant (otherthanl roots unlesstheotherconsonantisavoicelessbilabialstop,glottalizedstoporvoiced “*p and*b’optionallybecomep’inCVC concludes: contrast, in (2006b:51), Wichmann words thatdidnothaveenvironment. That doesnot,however, accountforallcases. the newsound,p’,wasextendedbyonomatopoeia(andsoundsymbolism)toadditional the that postulated (1996) Campbell change appearedtoaffect original*b’inwordswhichhadanapicalconsonant,andthen 2006b). Wichmann 1984; Norman and Kaufman 1996; Campbell (see change the for environments conditioning different suggested have Yucatecan, andthendiffused toPoqomamanddialectsofPoqomchi’.Different scholars Ch’olan-Tseltalan2014; in WichmannLaw began 2006b). 1984:85; This and Norman and Kaufman 1996; 115–16, 1977:38, Campbell (cf. created anejectivep’inadditiontob’ of this sound or in its reflexes in Huastecan and Eastern Mayan Eastern and Huastecan in reflexes its in or sound this of Nevertheless, curiosityleadsustowonderwhatmighthavebeen inthephoneticmakeup *w, *ŋ, sincetherearestraightforwardsoundcorrespondencesthatsupport thereconstructionof n something like but different from opposite geographical extremes of the Mayan family languages; Q’anjob’alan Greater before it hadchanged has changed itsŋton.Forexample, Mocho’ čo:ŋ ‘tosell’ wasborrowedfromCh’olan,which had Ch’olan before time the from languages Q’anjob’alan some in Ch’olan from words ent conditions). These arenotcommonphonologicalchanges. and to become a voiceless fricative in Eastern Mayan and original sounds,*koŋ‘tosell’ (Kaufman1976). + -Vb’ ‘instrument,placeof’) underwentthechange*ŋ>n There has been occasional curiosity about the phonetic nature of PM This imploded uvular goes against Greenberg’s (1970)original proposed implicational The There is verification of the change *h, *čon (cf.Proto-Mayan *q’, ontheotherhand,hasnotreceived any particular attention and isgenerally *n, and*x the other sounds encountered in reflexes of
– I
would sayprobable h/w/y inHuastecan; ).” Hisopinion,however, that“soundchangescanbespontaneous,” *ŋ >n(compare native Mocho’ koŋob’‘market’, which preserves *ko:ŋ), after Ch’olan had undergone the change . There reallyisnoplausiblealternativereconstructionfor x ŋ in Eastern Mayan languages (details below). Those with in the rest of the Greater Q’anjob’alan languages; and and languages; Q’anjob’alan Greater the of rest the in
3 – that *ŋ >nbothinthecomparative evidence and inloan-
n in Yucatecan, Ch’olan-Tseltalan, andafewofthe PM *q’ was also imploded (phonetically [qˤ]). M ayan
– that
history w/h/y in Huastecan (under differ could lead it to lose its nasality could lead it to lose its nasality in some of the languages. *ŋ insomeofthelanguages. languages
and
comp *ŋ and its non-na-
– whichareat arison *k >čbut 47 - -
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 sounds, ther shows up as suchin any Mayan language and, though we reconstruct four distinct some oftheothersubfamilies,asseenincomparisons Table (4a) and(4b)),wheretheyarecomparedwithothersimilarsounds. PM times. in Table seen as reflexes, complicated have based are they which upon dences the subgroups shows more than threedifferentthe subgroupsshows contrastsforthefourcorrespondences 1)t (1a) reconstruct two separate sounds inProto-K’ichean (PK) x fromPM*xdoesnot.Sincethetwocorrespondencessetscontrast,itisnecessaryto of PM *x in that a vowel preceding is it where Q’eqchi’, PM of reflex the languages; PM of reflex The cations for thephonetic makeup of PM*x. 4)t’ (4b) TABLE 3.3 one from PM *x; I that 48 and Uspantek). In short,I Q’eqchi’except languages Mayan Eastern all in merged later the *xfrom*ŋand*χ *x was to fill in the missing gap for the velar fricative χ withnocorrespondingx.Perhapsamotivation for theshift ofPM not so uncommon. Castilian Spanish (various Peninsular dialects), for example, has only odd to assume PMhad seem might It languages. Q’anjob’alan Greater some and Mayan Eastern in reflexes its extension, thatconventionally reconstructed PM*xphonetically *χ, asare was actually PM reconstructed conventionally of reflexes K’ichean the in ence once also contrasted uvular and velar fricatives, as seemstobesupported by the differ trasted uvular and velar stops, as did PM, it is not implausible that K’ichean languages con- languages Q’anjob’alan Greater some and Mayan Eastern Since fricative). voiceless uvular (a [χ] phonetically is languages Mayan Eastern all in orthography) practical as written is What 2013:184). 1977, (Campbell it represent to symbol better a that what has beenreconstructed as PK*xprobably was phonetically uvular, making † nally andbeforefront vowels(also 1)t’ (1b) may havecontributedto 2)t (2a) 2)t’ (2b) 3)č (3a) 3)č’ (3b) 4)t (4a) Note thatin Yucatecan, *tand*t
Note We maywonderifit is possibletoeliminate Clearly therehasbeenconsiderable The relationship between the reflexes of PM of reflexes the between relationship The The sounds*t L the one from PM *ŋ should be reconstructed as something more fronted than the yle usea Yucatecan Huastecan that the Huastecan reflexes of these sounds are not as straightforward as those of *t, C
SOUND CORRESPONDENCESRELATED ampbell *ts, *č, and *t y and*t
t/č t’/č’ t’/č’ ts s ts’ ts’ č č’ t/č argued but is distinct from the reflex the from distinct is but h, andUspantek,whereitisalsox *χ (uvular)but no corresponding y *ŋ losingitsnasalityandbecoming ’ areunusualwithinthePMsystem,andsoundcorrespon-
propose that PM had that PM *ŋ > PK *x (velar) and PM *x > PK *χ (uvular), and y (and their glottalized counterparts), no language in any of † y merged tot (and *t’, *ŋ isalsoxinK’icheanlanguageswiththeexceptionsof t’ frombothearlier sounds > t t’ t’ ts rTetlnG-’no’lnMma ’cenPM K’ichean Mamean Gr-Q’anjob’alan Gr-Tseltalan č č’ t x from PM *ŋ has falling tone, but a vowel before shifting among these sounds in Huastecanfrom shifting amongthesesounds t č’ t’ ts ts’ č č’ č *t *ŋ y *ŋ andPM ’ >t’); then t (from both sources) > *t and TO *t y and*t x inthepresenceofuvularχ(though č’ inthissameenvironment). *χ, and no *x,a situation which
– bothcannotbe y and*t *x (velar), but this situation is y ’ fromPM,given that nei- x insomeofthelanguages. *x inK’icheanhasimpli- *x isxinall the K’ichean č ’č’ č’ ’t *t’ t’ t’ st *ts ts ts s s *ts’ ts’ ts’ č č ts y ’ ’ ̣ ̣
*x andPM 3.4. *ŋ toEasternMayan *x. I *t t *č č ’*č’ č’ č *ŋ, andby
proposed x (
SOME HUASTECANCORRESPONDENCES y *r >t and*t y in PM is notclearfromthesoundsincorrespondencesetsupon ’ inPM
– sometime *t ts t’ ts’ č č’ t t’ ts ts’ t Potosí y (and*t
3.3) whichcontrastwiththese. Huastec s thereconstructionhasbeencharacterized as palatal- y ’, respectively) suggests thataPMcontrastintermsof *t č č ’t’ t’ ’č’ č’ t Huastec t t t ’t’ t’ t t Chontla ׅ ’ׅ y *t and*t *t y and*t y and M
3.3 become 3.3 *ṭ (and*ṭ’)fromPM*t*t’and y ayan ’ align differently from thoseofother č č’ č č’ Chicomuseltec *t y ’ mightbemoreappealing y ’ can be derived from some other
history y and*t clearer when the Mamean the when clearer
and *č *t’ *č’ tׅ* ’tׅ* *t *t’ *č *č’ *t rt-usea PM Proto-Huastecan The likelyphonetic y ’ mighteverhave
comp arison
– atleast *t and **k **t **k’ **t **t **ts **ts’ **č **č’ **t 49 ’ׅ y y ’ - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 50 would clearer. We mightask,though,whyanrwouldshifttoat.Neither>norč matches the tcorrespondencesinothersubgroups,making the reconstruction of *t flex) is a natural nor expected change. expected nor natural a is flex) their space.(SeeGordonet avoid merger and to maintain their phonemic contrasts from the vowels that shifted into (towards barred“i”). This historically attested sequence ofshiftsallowedthevowelsto third, thisraised“dress”vowelcrowdedthe“kit”vowel,whichinreaction centralized the spaceof“dress”vowel;second,asaconsequencevowelraised;and, a pushchain. First, the “trap” vowel (the vowel inwordslike in place took shift the in stages the that confirms documentation historical English, land Zea example, inthevowelshiftNew chains. For some chainshiftswereindeedpush existence of pushchainsisanempirical matter, andthereissolidempirical evidence that phonological distinctions on whichpushchainsareassumedtodepend.Nevertheless, the explanations in linguisticsandthusobjecttoreliance on theneedorintention to maintain gap leftby at all expected. However, ifthelanguage came to lack pulled (r>t)? was A matched by five short ones: helps make clear why phonetic reconstructed as “long” vs. “short”rather than merely a pure lengthcontrast, and this it appears that PM also had a vowel-quality difference between the vowelstraditionally along with the loss ofthe length contrast in the other vowels in those languages. Rather, tion for whythe contrast traditionally represented as /a:/ vs. /a/ should nothave been lost had solelyastraightforwardlength contrast, there would benostrongphonetic motiva environments, e.g. beforehorɁ,whereitisa)(seeCampbell 1977:89–90). IfPMhad vowels, between the conventionally rendered /a:/ and /a/, the latter as ə(except in certain which havelostthe“length” contrast neverthelessmaintain the oppositioninlow languages) of dialects (and languages Mayan the of Most [a]. is /a:/ long and [ə] ically most ofthe languages that have the contrast, what isrepresented as short/a/ is phonet- PM aswell. Viewing the contrast this way could have some satisfyingimplications. In that perhapstheoppositioninvolvedphonetically suggests a vowel-qualitydistinctionin lax contrast in some of the languages, for example in most K’ichean languages). This ference betweenthe“long”andmatching“short”vowels(aclose/open contrast,atense/ the same thing.However, phonetically theoppositiondoesinvolve avowel-quality dif- difference, might be of no particular significance, involving merely notational variants of was oneofpurelengthandnothingelse,orwhetheritinvolvedalsoavowel-quality originally contrast the Whether schwa-like. or [ə] phonetically is /a/ “short” that except vowels aretypically also moreopenorslightlylowerthantheir“long”counterparts, instead of it)? In a majority of the Mayan languages that maintain the contrast, the “short” there possiblyavowel-quality distinction involved(inadditiontothelengthdifference or this oppositionphonetically was one ofapurelengthdifference andnothingelse,orwas in somanyofthelanguages, even inthosethat otherwise lost the length opposition between /i/ and /ɪ/, or between /u/ and /ʊ/. Thus, while it was correct to eliminate PM eliminate to *ə fromthe PM inventory as reconstructed earlier, perhapsweshouldresuscitate PM correct was it while Thus, /ʊ/. and /u/ between or /ɪ/, and /i/ between distinction
f e (a (Table (1a) set of For example,Mameanč Some scholarsareskeptical of the existence of pushchains;manyopposeteleological Conventionally L yle č > C č ampbell *č between , leaving a gap into which twaspulled t > ( ̣
> č ), thatmighthavebeensomemotivationfortheunusual , PM is reconstructed with contrastive vowel length, five long vowels long five length, vowel contrastive with reconstructed is PM , ̣
ə and change from
a isphonetically more salient, more distinct, than that, say, i, al. 2004,especiallypp.264–5,fordetails.) e, a, ə (orsomething o, an ordinary u, and V: (vowellength). The question can be asked, 4 Ifthe sequence of changes was a pull chain, why č to a retroflex
.) comes 3.3) ə-like) shows upas the counterpart to t (becauseitchangedtoč to fill the č), leaving a gap for tinto which rm n earlier an from č trap) raised,impinging on ishighlyunusualandnot ̣ *r >tchange. *t andthus (retro- ̣
– the a r - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 falling) developed from *VhC>V laryngeals when 6 volume, fordiscussionofPMlexicalitems.) guages and reconstruction of the phonology (as described above). (See Kaufman, this lan- the of classification accepted generally most now the for support further provides history, Mayan linguistic prehistory, Mayan epigraphy, and much more. It follows and is a rich, ripe resource, available to be exploited for contributions to Mesoamerican pre- 5 implications forgeneralclaimsabouttonogenesis(seePalosaari2011). duce high(rising)tonein Yucatec Maya butlow(falling)toneintheotherlanguageshas pro- laryngeals the that fact The details.) for 2011:95–106 Palosaari (See pitch. falling markers that cross-reference their subjects; these ergative markers are equivalent in form associated antipassive constructions. InMayanlanguages, transitive verbsbearergative of Mayanmorphosyntax. These studiesreveal that PMwasanergative language, with tense/aspect/mood/voice in verbs,andespecially Kaufman’s(2002) detailed treatment voice,” Norman and Campbell (1978) about PM syntax generally, Robertson (1992) on recon- struction of applicative and antidative constructions, Norman (1978)on“instrumental on (2003) Mora-Marín morphology, Ch’olan on (1984) Norman and Kaufman most of those of the rest ofthe world. Studies include England (1991) onwordorder, of thatmostotherlanguagefamilies in the Americas and,itissafetosay, alsoof languages. Nevertheless,thestudyofMayanhistorical syntax isconsiderably inadvance particularly about thehistoryofgrammar ofthevarioussubgroupsandindividual We shouldexpect much moretobediscoveredinthefutureaboutPMmorphosyntaxand different subbranches of the family. between vowels of the opposing sets. I that inmostofthelanguages,“length”oppositioninvolvesalsoaqualitydistinction to describe the phonetic character of the vowel distinctions in question, though heaccepts communication, about this paper) does not believe that a tense/lax opposition is sufficient with “short”vowels(phonetically lower, moreopen,laxer). Terrence Kaufman (personal opposition inPMwhichcontrasted “long”(phonetically higher, closer, ortenser)vowels *[ə] phonetically as the “short” counterpart to “long” *V:C >V vowels, thoughthechangesinvolvedarenotsameineachlanguage.In Yucatec Maya, segmental phonology involving vowels followedbylaryngeals (h orʔ)andfromlong echo vowel, becoming tone, word-final guistics lin- Mayan to contribution valuable and important particularly a is etymologies, 3,000 over with dictionary, etymological Mayan 1,505-page (2003) Justeson’s with Kaufman have tone: Yucatec Maya, Lacandón, Uspantek, and Mocho’ structed longandshortvowelsinadditiontoorinsteadofapurelength-onlycontrast. PM lengthcontrastinvolved a vowel-quality difference between conventionally recon-
PM LEXICAL McQuown (1956) had postulated a tonal contrast for PM. Only four Mayan languages *V: MORPHOSYNTAX
– something ́ >V C (longvowelgavelowtone),and*VhC>V Vʔ >V ̀ (Campbell 1977:38, 89). In Mocho’, PM Mocho’, In 89). 1977:38, (Campbell : RECONSTRUCTION were involved. In Uspantek, in word-final syllables only, low tone (i.e. only, tone syllables low word-final in Uspantek, In involved. were ̀ ; and*Vŋ>V which nearly all other language families of the Americas lack. This V 1 ʔV 1 C and ̀ ; otherwise, long vowels in final syllables have high have syllables final in vowels long otherwise, :x; ̀ :C; 5 Tonal contrasts in these languages developed from V
propose, 1 *VʔC >V hV 1 C respectively, andthen as a hypothesis for further testing, that the M ̀ :C whentheCwasastoporaffricate; ayan ̀ C and*VʔC>V
*a, as part of the overall vowel history *VʔC and*VhCdevelopedan
– and they belong to three
and V ̀ 1
1 comp ʔV ʔV 1 1 C C >V
– hightones arison ̀ :C with 51 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 (1984, what itcanreveal aboutchangesinMayanlanguages. A in which the Maya hieroglyphic texts are written and to examining the Maya script for (languages) language the of interpretation the to linguistics historical Mayan of findings morphology fromaspecttotensemarkers. attestations in colonial sources. Campbell (1990) traced the development in Kaqchikel and Gardner (1988) identified Coxoh as an extinct dialect of Tseltal based on scant lexical by aglide(w, from earlier sequences of velar stop (kork’)followed by around vowel(uoro)followed strate thatthechangesinCh’olan of*k>čande:itookplaceatatimebeforethe example, Campbell (1984)argued thatattestations in Mayahieroglyphicwriting demon- opinions varyaboutdetails of which Ch’olanlanguage(s)mayhavebeeninvolved).For many others. They show that the language of the Maya among script (2004), Wichmannin is papers definitelythe Ch’olanand (though 2014), (2013a, Law 2006b), (2006a, mann non-round vowelwasauvular (q, change of colonial attestations.that the Campbell(1974,1977)examinedoldersourcestoshow Q’eqchi’and Poqomchi’, of Poqomam, in change the that showed 1977) (1973b, Campbell example, For languages. stand Mayan epigraphy, and to use findings in the writing system to study changes in the aid decipheringMayanhieroglyphic writing, touseMayanhistorical linguisticstounder to (7) and changes; of age relative the determine to (6) example); for (Coxoh, attestation scarce with languages extinct ancient identify to (5) changes; grammatical explain and legitimate shared innovations, and toclarify evidence for subgrouping;(4)touncover to refine some reconstructions of PM phonology; (3) to distinguish diffused changes from (1) todocument former contrasts nowlostandsoundchangesthathavetaken place; (2) served have investigations these from findings examples). The some for 1980, Kaufman 2013; 1990, 1988, 1977, 1974, 1973b, Campbell (see documents these of study guistic of contributions tounderstanding several changes in Mayanlanguages basedonthe lin- sources to find out about changes in Mayan languages, though there have been a number earliest Spanish contact. There is extensive room forcontinued investigation of these Several 7 more completereconstructionofPMmorphosyntax,seeKaufman2002). ple the equivalent of [his-head]for‘onhim’ and[your-stomach] for ‘inyou’.(Foramuch relational nouns forlocative noun rootinconstruction,forexam- functions, i.e.possessed of theform,forexample,[her-house thewoman]for‘thewoman’salso had house’. PM word orderwhensubjectandobject were equal in animacy. PMnominal possession was (where ‘human’ ishighest,‘animate’ nexthighest,and‘inanimate’ lowest),buthad VSO basic word order when the subject washigher than the object on the “animacy” hierarchy are distinctfromtheergative ones.Itisarguedhad thatPM (Verb-Object-Subject)VOS and theobjectsoftransitive verbs bothbearabsolutive cross-referencing markers,which verbs intransitive of bear. subjects nouns The that prefixes pronominal possessive the to 52 Huastecan sourcesrevealthatmodernHuasteclabialized velars k trasted languages. Similarly, Yucatec Maya older written sources reveal that the language con-
In recent years many studies,toonumeroustosurveyadequately here, have applied CONTRIBUTIONS FROM WRITTEN SOURCES L yle h andx,thoughthesehavemerged tohinmodern Yucatec Maya (Campbell 1990). 1990, 2013), Justeson and Campbell (1984, 1997), Houston et Houston 1997), (1984, Campbell and Justeson 2013), 1990, Mayan languages have abundant written attestations beginning shortly after C k and k’ to ky and ampbell y, h, Ɂ) followedbyavowel(Kaufman1980;Campbell 1990). Campbell k’y respectively when the next consonant after an intervening ts tostookplaceinrelatively recent times,basedonearlier q’, χ) haddiffused acrossdialects of several K’ichean
few examplesincludeCampbell w andk
al. (2000), al. w ’ developed Wich- - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 a nt ed p ne eaiain Cmbl 17c.Te ocle Macro-Mayan so-called The 1973c). (Campbell examination under up held not has Mayan with Chipaya-Uru (Olson 1964, 1965), to which Yunga was added (Stark 1972), 1997a; Campbell and Poser 2008). The proposal that initially seemed suggestive to join resulting inproposalsthatfail toreachalevelofreasonableplausibility(seeCampbell involved, were procedures appropriate of application inappropriate or methods flawed insufficient to eliminate accident or diffusion as possible explanations, and often either is presented evidence the most, For discredited. been have these say, of to most it fice Mixe-Zoquean, Paezan,Penutian, Tarascan, Totonacan, and Yunga, amongothers.Suf- (Greenberg 1987), Arawakan, Chipaya-Uru, Hokan,Hokan-Siouan,Huave,Lenca, other families,forexamplewith Araucanian (Mapudungun)(Stark1970), “Amerind” Numerous proposalsofdistantgeneticrelationshipshaveattempted tolinkMayanwith 9 pened independentlyorareduetodiffusion. the remaining issues involving subgrouping andwhether certain shared changes hap- in thestudyofdiffusion amongMayanlanguagesthatwecanhopetountanglesomeof numeral classifiers),etc. markers, plural auxiliaries, suffixes, aspect and voice markers, person (several ‘matter’ based splitergativity), tothedirectreplication of actualmorphologicalforms,linguistic passive, the development of an inclusive/exclusive distinction in person marking, aspect- phonemic contrasts),tosyntactic and semantic patterns (thelossoftheagentfocusanti diffused phonological innovations (phonemic mergers, soundchanges and even new features identifies shared through contact among two ormore languages in the lowlands that range from (2014:175) Law structures. morphosyntactic and patterns syntactic direct borrowingofseveralboundmorphemes,andmuchconvergence orborrowingof changes, sound specific of diffusion borrowings, phonological include Area Linguistic As et (Justeson MayanLinguistic Area Lowland theGreater in participate languages Mayan identification. cases that many other linguists would not accept based on standard criteria for loanword some borrowings; for example, Wichmann and Brown (2003) include as loans numerous of identification the concerning differ Opinions etc. 2009, Hull and Wichmannvolume; Barrett 1973b, Campbell volume; et Justeson 1976; Kaufman this and Campbell 1997b; 1977, 1980, 1976, 1964, Kaufman example, for See, ences. diffusion amongMayanlanguagesthemselves Mayan languages have received from others,whatthey have contributed to others,and what contact, language of study the is linguistics historical Mayan for Verysignificant 8 writing. much stands to be gained in future historical linguistic work involving Maya hieroglyphic ante quem forthesechanges. texts werewritten,establishingaterminus Almost certainly Barrett 2002), and in the broader Mesoamerican Linguistic et Mesoamerican (Campbell broader Area the in and 2002), Barrett job’alan languages except Tojolabal and Mocho’)(Kaufman1974,2002,thisvolume; Q’an- Greater and Mamean involving Sphere, Huehuetenango the (a.k.a. area diffusion
PROPOSALS OF REMOTERELA These linguistic areas/diffusion zonesall deserve more attention, and it is in particular LANGUAGE Law (2014:31) points out, changes shared among languages of the Lowland Mayan Lowland the of languages among shared changes out, points (2014:31) Law 1996, 2002; Kaufman and Justeson 2009; Law 2009, 2013a, 2013b, 2014, this 2014, 2013b, 2013a, 2009, Law 2009; Justeson and Kaufman 2002; 1996, CONTACT
al. 1985; al. Law 2014; Kaufman, this volume), in the Huehuetenango the in volume), this Kaufman, 2014; Law TIVES OF MAYAN LANGUAGES
M – ayan oh onod ad tutrl influ- structural and loanwords both
history
al. 1985; al.
and Campbell et Campbell
comp arison
al. 1986). al. al. 1986; al. 53 - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 job’alal, began diversifying at c.2100 down into the lowlands c.3500 mala quite late, after 1200 (Justeson et (Justeson Mayan family and toneighboring non-Mayan languages and diffused structural traits formed during the Classic Maya period, contributing many loanwords both within the 2600 body of Mayan next at c.3600 at next Mayan of body bp 10 ods willsurelynotholduptoscrutiny. breakthroughs are in store, and proposals that do not follow careful, appropriate meth- is It impossible toanticipatehowsuccessfultheymaybe,butitisunlikelythatstriking continue. doubt no will Mayan of relatives remote other find to Attempts sible. lizing carefulmethods,makesthisproposalofgeneticrelatednessmuchmoreplau- and WitkowskiHowever,1979). Mora-Marín’suti- David investigation, recent (2016) accounted fortheevidencepresentedonproposal’s behalf(see,forexample,Brown on thetopicfailed to show thatborrowingand accidental similarity could not have holding upiswithMixe-Zoquean. Though theproposalseemedplausible,earlierwork ship between Mayanandsome other family so far which seems to have a chance of kin- external an of proposal only The connections. claimed the support to insufficient was presented evidence The others). among Witkowski1979, and Brown 1956; 1942, Mixe-Zoquean and Totonacan, sometimes also with Huave (see Radin 1924; McQuown hypothesis, actuallyaseriesofinterrelatedhypotheses,wouldlinkMayanwith 54 spoken intheCuchumatanes Mountains ofGuatemala, around Soloma,c.2200–4200 was PM that hypothesized had (1976) Kaufman volume). this 1976, Kaufman particular Studies ofMayanlinguistic prehistory havereached numerous richconclusions(seein after 3000 after Q’anjob’alal belong to a single branch, labeled Western Mayan, which broke up c.3000 up broke Westernwhich labeled Mayan, branch, single a to belong Q’anjob’alal River. Yucatecan split off from the remaining body of Mayan next, c.3900 arated from the rest ofthe family, leaving the highlands, going downthe Usumacinta ago, ultimately occupying theareasofpresent-daylanguages,when Huastecan sep 4,200 around diversified chronology. PM relative general a reflecting as taken be are Kaufman’s; manydispute the accuracy of glottochronology, but at least the dates can events various these with associated dates glottochronological The volume.). this 1976, reflect theseculturaldomains.) organization. (See Kaufman, this volume, for a full description of the lexical items that items of material culture, aspects of commerce, its ownritual and religion, and social cultigens and domestic animals, the maize complex, various Mesoamerican and Mayan structed vocabulary ofPMreveals aculture characterized by variousMesoamerican with themaize complex atthecoreofafullrangeMesoamerican cultigens. The recon- structed vocabulary shows PMspeakerstohavebeenhighly successful agriculturalists, that now tolocate the PM homeland aroundUspantán(Kaufman, this volume). Recon- where speakersexploited both highland andlowlandecological zones. Hehasrevised c.3400 highlands fromtheMayanlowlands c.2200
.
A brief summary of Mayan diversification follows (for a fuller account, see Kaufman see account, fuller a (for follows diversification Mayan of Asummary brief Ch’olan-Tseltalan (Greater Tseltalan), in hisview, moved downintothelowlands PM L yle bp bp . KaufmanhypothesizesthatCh’olan-Tseltalan (Greater Tseltalan) and Greater IGITC PREHISTORY LINGUISTIC C . Both Greater K’ichean and Mamean began to diversify internally at around ampbell bp
al. 1985). al. . Each of these, Ch’olan-Tseltalan (Greater Tseltalan) and Greater Q’an- Greater and Tseltalan) (Greater Ch’olan-Tseltalan these, of Each The K’ichean groups expanded into eastern and southern Guate- southern and eastern into expanded groups K’ichean The ad . Muchofeastern Guatemala below the Motagua River was bp bp , and then branched into Greater K’ichean and Mamean . EasternMayanbranchedoff fromthemainremaining
years ago. bp . The Lowland MayanLinguistic Area was Tseltalan speakers movedto the Chiapas bp , then moved
years bp - , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 stronger possibleexplanation for thiscase. Another involves ‘towalk’ in Tarascan, but with ling evidence of /r/ in anassumeddonorlanguage, especially not justasingle example compel not is /t/ and much?’, ‘how meaning word a borrow language a would why But is Briefly, one Yemé deserve. cases these find they will evaluation the for here space unfortunately,insufficient though is convincing, linguists there most that unlikely is It languages. Mayan other to next went northearly, and then onlylater Chicomuseltec separated and endedupinChiapas or nearitsethnohistorically known location, that is, supportingtheviewthat Huastecan provide evidence that Huastecanphonologydiffered little from PMwhenitarrivedin loans from pre-proto-Huastecan into languages of central and northeastern Mexico that tion frompresent-dayHuastecterritorywouldrequire. and does not need an explanation of how it got exactly there that a surprising back migra languages, the coincidence of Chicomuseltec ending up where it did is lesssurprising, ing, with Huastec then later migrating north. With a location closer to the body ofMayan seem to favor a view of Huastecan being nearer other Mayan languages before diversify- guages ofthesesubgroups. thus thisparticular change is notcompelling evidence of later contact among thelan- aspects ofthechange)hadtohavehappenedindependently in thesedifferent subgroups, Kaufman andNorman1984)aredifferent frominHuastecan,thischange(oratleast environments forthechanges*k>čand*k’č’inCh’olan-Tseltalan languages(see (and Nahuatl excrement’‘ that in PM would be *taʔ + clearly borrowed from a lowland Mayan language. It isanalyzable, composed of pieces word Huastec the example, For 2014). Law 2003; Norcliffe (see languages these with contact can languagesshareseveralsoundchangesandsomemorphological similarities due to that Huastecan was incontact with languages of the Maya lowlands, since both Huaste- migrated back to its location next to other Mayan languages. Whatever the truth, it is clear up there,andthenHuasteccontinuedonnorthtoitspresentlocation while Chicomuseltec can went partway between current Huastec territory and the rest of the Mayan area, split Huaste- (3) behind; stayed Chicomuseltec and north went Huastec then and diversified, be nexttoother Mayan languages; (2) Huastecan stayed near the other Mayan languages, to back migrated then Chicomuseltec family, and Mayan diversified, the later of rest the when did that happen? Ideas include: (1) Huastecan migrated north after separating from Potosí) and Chicomuseltec (in Chiapas) come to be separated by sucha distance, and bell 1988,1997b). Poqomam, separating them from their Poqomchi’their 1250 from around them relatives separating Poqomam, conquest oftheRabinal Valley bytheRabinallineageofK’iche’ haddisplacedthe occupied byXinkanspeakers,thoughPoqomamgroupsinvadedtheirterritoryafterthe and Yucatecan) and some Greater Q’anjob’alan languages the changes: the languages Q’anjob’alan Greater some Yucatecan)and and Kaufman 1980). Huastecan shares with lowland Mayan languages (Ch’olan-Tseltalan tecan had changed have. This thusisaborrowingfromoneofthoselanguagesintoHuastecan, after Huas- Huastecan has k’ih‘day’, not Kaufman (this volume, Kaufman and Justeson 2009:68, 70–2) argues that there are six These kindsofevidence of Huastecancontact with lowlandMayanlanguages would A persistentquestionis,howdidcloselyrelated Huastec (in Veracruz andSanLuis *q’ >*k’),and*kč(and t thoughttoconnectwithr.Itisquitepossiblethataccidental similarity provides tak’in ‘silver, money, preciousmetal’, has received commentary, sinceitseems teo:kwitlatl ‘gold,preciousmetal’ (teo:- ‘god’kwitlatl + in this position (see Norcliffe 2003; cf. Campbell 1988:211; Campbell cf. 2003; Norcliffe (see position this in *ŋ toh ‘how many?’ < pM many?’< ‘how xat k’in, which is the form Ch’olan-Tseltalan and Yucatecan *k’ > č’).However, because the complicated conditioning *q’i:ŋ ‘sun, day’, a Mesoamerican calque, as in M ayan ‘how many?’(Huastec ‘how *xar
history ‘excrement’).However,
and
comp ad *r >y, . (SeeCamp- arison *q >*k xay). 55 - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 2 1 NOTES could havegottenMayanloanslongafterHuastecwasinitspresentlocation. at Cacaxtla and Xochicalco, and thatChontalwereknowntravelers, sothatHuastecan out thatthere was arguably Mayanpresenceintheepi-Classic period incentral Mexico other Mayan languages into Huastecan. John Justeson(personal communication) points back laterseemslesslikely. the caseforHuastecan being inHuastec territory early and thenChicomuseltec coming lowlands, Mayan the of languages with contacts later of evidence the of face In words? in these accounts fortheextrasounds Tarascanof Mayan formsthatdonotmatchsounds kapárhi ‘bumblebee’*ka:b’ ‘bee,honey’)isprobablyaccidentally (cf.PM similar; what can accidental phonetic similarity; a verb meaning ‘to die’ is hardly ever borrowed. Taras- kamaw ‘todie’,similartoPM*kamdie’ (Huastecčem, tec(an) beforethechangeof*k(’)>č(’)(oracorrespondingsound).However, Yemé Huas- reflect putatively examples Other anywhere. borrowed often not word a Pamean, not especiallyclosetoHuastecgeographically. Another involves‘bat’ inProto-Oto- verbs arerarely borrowed, especially not oneswithcommon meanings, and Tarascan is 56
however, anddeservescarefulconsideration. be predicted from context when morphemes come together. This is an important issue, nearly all),theinsertionofaphonetic glottal stop before vowel-initial morphemescan all the caseshepointsoutindeed point toinitial glottal stops, I and underlying morpheme-initial glottal stop andagainst vowel-initial forms. While Kaufman (2015) sion ofthispaper. They donot,however, agree with everythingpresentedhere. I thank John Justesonand There are very few cases such asthe canist scholars. Their IPA equivalentswheredifferent are: those inMexicothespellingsofINALI(2009)(inanglicizedversions). tions of the Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (http://www.almg.org.gt/), and L khamé-ri ‘bitter’ also is an unlikely loan, and together with (cf.PM*k’ah‘bitter’) The phoneti The spelling ofthenamesMayanlanguagesinGuatemala y ts š q’ k’ č’ ts’ ṭ’ ṭ t t’ b’ č t Americanist yle y y t ’ C ampbell c symbols employed here are those common to Mayanists and Ameri- has a different analysis and presents arguments in favor of an original j ʃ q k tʃ ʈ ʈ t ɓ tʃ IPA t jʔ ʔ j ʔ ʔ ʔ ʔ ʔ Terrence Kaufman for valuable comments onan earlier ver tak’in ‘precious metal’ oneoflater loans from čam) isprobablyjustan
follows recommenda- believe that in all (or -
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 Campbell, Lyle. 1996. “On sound change and challenges to regularity.”In to challenges and change sound “On Lyle.1996. Campbell, Campbell, Lyle. 1990.“Philological studies andMayan languages.” In Historicallinguis- Campbell, Lyle. 1988. Campbell, Lyle. 1984. “The implications of Mayan historical linguistics for glyphic research.” Campbell, Lyle. 1977.Quicheanlinguistic prehistory (UniversityofCalifornia Publica Campbell, Lyle. 1974. “Quichean palatalized velars.” hypothe- Maya-Chipaya the and relationships genetic “Distant 1973c. Lyle. Campbell, Campbell, Lyle. 1997a.AmericanIndianlanguages:the historical linguistics of Native Campbell, Lyle. 1973b. “The philological documentation of a variable rule in the history consonants.” glottalic “On 1973a. Lyle. Campbell, Brown, CecilH.,andStanleyR. Witkowski. 1979.“Aspectsofthephonological history Berendts, Carl Hermann. 1876. “Remarks on the centres of ancient civilization in Central Barrett, Rusty. 2002. “The Huehuetenango Sprachbund and Mayan language standardiza Barrett, Rusty. 1996. “The effects of k’ichean/mamean contact in Sipakapense.” REFERENCES 5 4 3
tics andphilology Archaeological Foundation,51).Provo:New World Archaeological Foundation. 1–16. (InstituteforMesoamericanStudies,Publication9). Albany: SUNY Albany. In tions inLinguistics,81).Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Linguistics 40:132–4. sis.” Anthropological Linguistics America. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Durie andMalcolmRoss,72–89. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. ative method reviewed: regularity and irregularity in languagechange,ed.byMark of PokomandKekchi.” Linguistics 39:44–6. of Mayan Society America and their geographical distribution.” Chicago: ChicagoLinguisticsSociety. Yoshimura,Keiko 309–18. and Pycha, Anne Debenport, Erin Andronis, Mary by ed. tion in Guatemala.” In Proceedings of the 38th Chicago linguistics society: The panels, Linguistics Society a glottalizedconsonantbecomespredictablylaryngealizedandhasfallingpitch. ingly thatitdoesnothavephonemicallycontrastivetone,butratheravowelbefore reported also to have a tonal contrast; however, Herrera Zendejas (2013) argues convinc- Formerly, would behighlyunlikely. ural; however, creation of avoiced stopdinasystemthat has noothervoiced stops Some have speculated *ŋ >y/aɁ__#(Norclif *ŋ >h/__#(and *ŋ >w/#__(sometimes the Huastecanreflexesarecomplicated: PM Phoneticism inMayanhieroglyphic writing,ed.byJohnJustesonandLyle Campbell, *ŋ underwentseveralconditionedchangesinHuastecan;theexactconditionsfor 1875–1875:3–14. ‑ the Tsotsil of San Bartolomé de los Llanos (a.k.a. Carranza Tsotsil) had been Tsotsil)been Carranza had (a.k.a. Llanos los de Bartolomé TsotsilSan the of Zoquean.” *ŋ> w/u,o__#,thoughwithsomevariation) , ed.byJacekFisiak,87–105.Berlin: MoutondeGruyter. 22:25–36. The linguistics of Southeast Chiapas (Papers of the New World International Journalof that a changeofr>dfollowedbytmightnotseemunnat- fe 2003:74–7). International Journalof American Linguistics Ø , conditionsyettobedetermined) 15:113–35. M American Linguistics Bulletin of the American Geographical ayan International Journal of American International Journal of American
history
and
45:34–47. comp 39:133–4. The compar arison Berkeley 57 - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 Halpern, Abraham M. 1942.“A Greenberg, JosephH.1987.Languageinthe Americas. Palo Alto: StanfordUniversity Hervás Herrera Zendejas, Esther. 2013. “Patrón acentual, F0 y consonantes laríngeas en el tsotsil INALI. 2009.Catálogodelaslenguasindígenas nacionales: varianteslingüísticas de Houston, StephenD.,JohnS.Robertson, andDavidStuart.2000.“Thelanguageofclas- Greenberg, JosephH.1970.“Somegeneralizations concerning glottalic consonants, Gordon, Elizabeth, Lyle Campbell, JenniferHay, Margaret Maclagan, Andrea Sudbury, Fox, James A. 1978.“Proto-Mayan accent, morpheme structureconditions,andvelar diss., Proto-Yucatecan.”PhD of reconstruction the “Towards 1973. M. WilliamFisher, England, Nora C.1991.“Changes in basic word orderinMayanlanguages.” 1983. C. Nora England, Charencey, Charles-Félix-Hyacinthe Gouhier comte de. 1872. Charencey, Charles-Félix-Hyacinthe Gouhier comte de. 1870. Notice sur quelques Campbell, Lyle, and William J. Poser. 2008. Lyle,a Campbell, as “Mesoamerica 1986. TerrenceSmith-Stark. and Thomas Kaufman, now?” we are where linguistics: Lyle,“Mayan Campbell, Terrenceand 1985. Kaufman. Campbell, Lyle,Campbell, “A Terrenceand 1976. Kaufman. Campbell, Lyle, andBrantGardner. 1988.“Coxoh.”InThelinguistics- ofsoutheastChi apel Ll. 2013. Lyle. Campbell, Campbell, Lyle. 1997b. “ThelinguisticprehistoryofGuatemala.” In Papersinhonor 58
Press. Latinoamérica VI, Universityof Texas, Austin, October de Venustiano Carranza.” Paper presented at the Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Archaeology andEthnology Nacional deLenguasIndígenas (INALI). México con sus autodenominaciones y referencias geoestadísticas sic Mayainscriptions.” Catalogo dellelingueconosciute enotiziadellaloro affinitàediversità. 1784–87. also: (See Beneficiencia. de Arbitrio Real Administraciondel Madrid: tos. y numeracion, division, y clasesdeestassegunladiversidad de susidiomasydialec especially implosives.” Cambridge UniversityPress. and Peter Trudgill. 2004.NewZealandEnglish: innovations.” PhDdiss.,UniversityofChicago. University ofChicago. tional Journalof American Linguistics Texas Press. phonètique danslesidiomesdelafamillemamehuastèque familles delanguesduMexique Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. linguistic area.” Annual Reviewof Anthropology 14:187–98. ican Antiquity cal Foundation,50).Provo:New World Archaeological Foundation. apas, Mexico Edinburgh UniversityPress,andCambridge:MIT Press. Mouton deGruyter. Berlin: 183–92. Campbell, LyleMistry, and P.J. Hill, Jane by ed. of William Bright, L yle y Panduro, Lorenzo. 1800–05. C ampbell , ed. by Lyleby ed. , New the of World(Papers 315–38. Campbell, Archaeologi- 41:80–9. Language 62:530–70. Historical linguistics: an introduction A grammarofMam,aMayanlanguage. Austin: University of Current Anthropology 41:321–56. International Journalof American Linguistics l3:51–62.CarnegieInstituteof Washington.
theory ofMayats-sounds.” . Havre:ImprimerieLepellatier. Catálogo de laslenguas las naciones conocidas 57:446–86. Language classification: history and method.
linguistic look linguistic its originsandevolution.Cambridge:
24, 2013. . Paris:Maisonneuve. Notes in Middle American 3d dto. Edinburgh: edition. 3rd . Recherches sur les lois at the Olmecs.” the at . Mexico: Instituto 36:123–45. ) Interna- Amer- - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 Kaufman, Terrence. 1975. “New Mayan languages in Guatemala: Sacapultec, Sipacapa, Sacapultec, Guatemala: in languages Mayan Terrence.Kaufman, “New 1975. Kaufman, Terrence.1974. Kaufman, Terrence.1972. “Teco 1969. Terrence. Kaufman, relaciones las de estudio el para lingüísticos “Materiales 1964. Terrence. Kaufman, 1985. Kaufman. Terrence and Campbell, Lyle Norman, William John, Justeson, Justeson, John,andLyle Campbell.1997.“Thelinguistic background ofMayahiero- Justeson, John,and Lyle Campbell. 1984. Law, Danny. 2009.“Pronominal borrowingamongtheMaya.” Kroeber, Alfred L. 1939. “Classification of the Mayan languages.” In Kaufman, Terrence, and William Norman. 1984. “An outline of Proto-Cholan phonology, Kaufman, Terrence, and JohnJusteson.2009.“Historical linguistics and pre-Columbian Kaufman, Terrence, with John Justeson. 2003. Pitts- of University languages.” Mayan in stop Terrence.Kaufman, glottal “Initial 2015. Kaufman, Terrence. 2002.“Reconstructing Mayanmorphologyandsyntax.”University Kaufman, Terrence. 1990.“AlgunosRasgosEstructurales de losIdiomasMayancescon phonology.”historical and dialectology Huastec of “Aspects Terrence.1985. Kaufman, Kaufman, Terrence. 1980.“Pre-ColumbianborrowinginvolvingHuastec.”InAmerican and Mayaland in correlations linguistic and “Archaeological Terrence.1976. Kaufman, and others.”MayanLinguistics1:67–89. cion Social. reconstruido (Cuaderno5).Mexico:CentrodeEstudiosMayas. American Linguistics México. de Autónoma Nacional Universidad Mexico: Vogt,81–136. Evon by ed. los Mayas, internas y externas delafamilia deidiomas Mayanos.” InDesarrollo Culturalde Institute, publication53.)NewOrleans: Tulane University. foreign impact of lowland Mayan languages and script. (Middle American Research Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. Francisco: San 41–67. Ford, Anabel and Macri J. Martha by ed. Mayan hieroglyphs, glyphic writing: arguments against a ‘Highland Mayan’ role.” In Thelanguage of for MesoamericanStudies/Austin:Universityof Texas Press. (Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Publication 9.) Albany: SUNY Albany, Institute of CaliforniaPress. ral areas ofnativeNorth by America, Kroeber,L. Alfred 112–5. University Berkeley: Studies, Publication 9). Mesoamerican Albany: StateUniversityofNew York. for (Institute 77–166. Campbell, Lyle and Justeson S. John morphology, andvocabulary.” In Phoneticism in Maya hieroglyphic writing, ed. by Mesoamerica.” nary. www.famsi.org/reports/01051/pmed.pdf. burgh, unpublishedpaper. of Pittsburgh, unpublishedmanuscript. England andStephenR.Elliott,59–114. Antigua Guatemala:CIRMA. Referencia Especial alK’iche’.”InLecturassobre laLingüísticaMaya,ed.byNoraC. International Journalof American Linguistics ies andMonographs16). The Hague:Mouton. ryn Klar, Margaret Langdon, and Shirley Silver, 101–12. (Trends inLinguistics, Stud- Indian andIndo-Europeanin honorofMadison S.Beeler studies:papers associated areasofMeso-America.” Ancient Mesoamerica 35:154–74. El Proto-Tzeltal-Tzotzil: Fonología comparadaydiccionario Idiomas deMesoamérica.Guatemala: Seminario de Integra-
– anewMayanlanguage.” World Archaeology 20:221–31. Phoneticism in Mayan hieroglyphic writing. A preliminary Mayan etymological dictio M 51:473–6. ayan
history 8:101–18. Diachronica 26:214–52. International Journal of
and Cultural and natu-
comp , ed.byKath- arison The 59 -
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 Mora-Marín, David F. 2003. “Historical reconstruction of Mayan applicative and antida McQuown, Norman. A. 1956. “The classification of the Mayan languages.” Latin America.” of languages indigenous “The 1955. Norman. A. McQuown, macro-mayance.” lingüística síntesis posible “Una 1942. Norman A. McQuown, Law, Danny. 2014.Languagecontact, inherited similarity and social difference: the story lan- Mayan in change contact-induced and similarity “Inherited 2013b. Danny. Law, Law, Danny. 2013a.“Mayanhistorical linguistics inanewage.”LanguageandLinguis- 60 Stark, Louisa R. 1970. “Mayan affinities with Araucanian.” with affinities “Mayan 1970. R. Louisa Stark, Robertson, John S. 1992.The history of tense/aspect/mood/voice in the Mayan verbal Robertson, John S.1977.“A Norman, William. 1978.“Advancement rules andsyntactic change: the lossofinstru- Uni- thesis, MA Proto-Huastecan.” of reconstruction “The 2003. Elizabeth. Norcliffe, hypothesis.” Proto-Mayan-MijeSokean “Testing 2016. F. David Mora-Marín, Radin, Paul. 1924. “The relationship of Maya to Zoque-Huave.” phonetic a non-glottalized stops: glottalized and (Mayan) “Quichean 1986. S. Pinkerton, Palosaari, Naomi Elizabeth. 2011. “Topics inmocho phonology andmorphology.” PhD Olson, Ronald D. 1965. “Mayan affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia II: cognates.” correspondences.” I: Bolivia of Chipaya with affinities “Mayan 1964. D. Ronald Olson, Norman, William M.,and Lyle Campbell. 1978. “Toward a Proto-Mayan syntax: a com- Stoll, Otto. 1885. “Supplementary remarks to the grammar of the Cakchiquel language, Cakchiquel the of grammar the to remarks “Supplementary 1885. Otto. Stoll, Stoll, Otto. 1884. ZurEthnographie der Republik Guatemala. Zürich: Orell Füssli. (Span- Stark, Louisa R. 1972.“Maya-Yunga-Chipayan: a new linguistic alignment.”
tive constructions.” Journal of American Linguistics Anthropologist 57:501–69. Mesa RedondasobreproblemasantropológicosdeMéxicoyCentro América. y Olmecas 2: 37–8. Tuxtla Gutiérrez: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, Reunión de of linguisticinteractionintheMayalowlands guages.” JournalofLanguageContact tics Compass7:141–56. complex. Austin: Universityof Texas Press. Journal of American Linguistics mental voiceinMayan.” versity ofCanterbury, Christchurch,NewZealand.http://hdl.handle.net/10092/3442. tional Journalof American Linguistics des Américanistes deParis by JohnJ.OhalaandJaeger, 125–39.Orlando,FL: Academic Press. study withimplications for phonological universals.” In Experimental Phonology, ed. diss., UniversityofUtah. tional Journalof American Linguistics International Journalof American Linguistics in Publications Miscellaneous Anthropology, 6).Columbia:Museumof Anthropology, 2, UniversityofMissouri. Linguistics, Mayan in (Studies 136–56. England, parative perspective on grammar.” InPapersinMayanlinguistics, ed.byNoraC. 255–68. ed. byDaniel G. Brinton.”Proceedings ofthe American Philosophical Society de IntegraciónSocialGuatemalteca.) ish translation: 1958 tional Journalof American Linguistics 6: 57–69. L yle C ampbell International Journalof American Linguistics Etnografía deGuatemala.[Publicación 8]. Guatemala: Seminario Berkeley LinguisticsSociety
16:317–24. proposed revision 22:191–5. 43:105–20. 82:125–80. 31:29–38. 38:119–35. 6:271–99. . Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. 30:313–24. in Mayan subgrouping.” International 4:458–76. Chicago Linguistic Society Journal dela Société 69:186–228. International American Interna- Interna- Interna- Mayas 22: -
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:30 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315192345, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315192345.ch3 Ximénez, Francisco. c.1702.Artedelastres lenguas cakchiquel, quicheytzutuhil Wichmann, Søren, and Kerry Hull. 2009. “Loanwords in Q’eqchi’, a Mayan language of languages: Mayan some among “Contact 2003. Brown. H. Cecil and Wichmann,Søren, Wichmann, Søren. 2006b. “A Wichmann, Søren. 2006a. “Mayan historical linguistics and epigraphy: A Wichmann,2004. ed. Søren, Annual Reviewof Guatemala, 31].Guatemala: Academia deGeografíaeHistoriaGuatemala.) as: 1993 in lished Martin HaspelmathandUri Tadmor, 873–96.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter. Guatemala.” In Loanwords in the world’s languages: a comparative handbook, ed. by inferences fromloanwords.” Saurwein. Anton Schwaben: Markt 18). Mesoamericana, (Acta 45–64. Fort, Le Geneviève and sand yearsofritualandreligious Mayaliterature, ed.byRogelio Valencia Rivera ground forthestudyofMayaCodices.” In Sacred books,sacred languages:twothou- of UtahPress. Anthropology 35:279–94. Arte delastres lenguas kaqchiquel,k’iche’ ytz’utujil[Biblioteca The linguisticsofMayawriting.SaltLakeCity:University
new look Anthropological Linguistics at linguistic interaction in the lowlands as a back- M ayan
history 45:57–93.
and
comp
new synthesis.” arison . (Pub- 61