DOCSLIB.ORG

The True History of the Word for 'Cacao' in Ancient Meso

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The True History of the Word for 'Cacao' in Ancient Meso The true history of the word for ‘cacao’ in ancient Meso-America Terrence Kaufman and John Justeson comments are welcome NOTE: NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED FURTHER!! If there is someone you think we should send a copy to, please advise us The true history of the word for ‘cacao’ in ancient Meso-America Terrence Kaufman and John Justeson This paper addresses a problem in linguistic reconstruction that is relevant to work on lexical diffusion in Meso-America, and thereby to work on intercultural interaction that probably dates to preclassic times. Specifically it concerns the origin and spread of the widely-diffused form *kakawa1,2 (and variants) as a word for ‘cacao’ in Meso-American languages. Its purpose is to show that Campbell & Kaufman (1976) are right in claiming a Mije-Sokean origin for this word, and why, and that Dakin & Wichmann (2000) cannot be right in claiming that it originated in Nawa. Cacao (cocoa)3 was a major crop in precolumbian Meso-America. The kernel was used as money; it was also ground and beaten with water and other flavorings to make a drink, chocolate. The pulp that surrounds the kernels inside the husk/pod was fermented to produce an alcoholic beverage. Aztecs, and arguably Teotihuacanos and other precolumbian societies (cross-reference, this volume), made strong efforts to control the production and distribution of cacao. The kernel (cocoa bean) was eventually used as currency. In Xinka, for example, the word /tuwa/ means both ‘cacao’ and ‘payment’. Cultivated cacao entered Meso-America from South America before the Olmec era (cross-reference, this volume). It now grows uncultivated in some areas of the lowlands, and cultivated cacao is grown in very restricted areas of the lowlands, including Tabasco and the Soconusco (cross-reference, this volume). There is one widely attested term for ‘cacao’ whose distribution is largely the result of diffusion: Sokean *kakawa, Mijean *kakaw, Nawa /kakawa-tl/, general Mayan, Totonako, and Potón (Chilanga) Lenka /kakaw/, and Paya [kaku]. Boruka, Tol, and Kare (Honduras) Lenka have [kaw], and Waymí has [ku]. A proximate antecedent form like [kVwa] is also reflected in Chinantekan and Amusgo. A variety of other terms is found in other languages, none of them widespread. Kaufman & Justeson1 The word for ‘cacao’ Throughout Meso-America, the (imported) peanut is named after ‘cacao’. Usually it is called ‘earth-cacao’, just as in British English it is called ‘ground-nut’. In northern Meso-America, where cacao is absent, ‘peanut’ can be called simply ‘cacao’ (e.g. Huasteca Nawa /kakawa-tl/, Totonako /kakaw/). Nawa /kakawa-tl/ is the source of the Spanish cacao, which is pronounced /kakáwa/ (cacahua) in some regional types of Spanish. The same Nawa form is also the source of Spanish cacahuate (continental Spanish cacahuete) ‘peanut’. 1. The Mije-Sokean hypothesis Campbell & Kaufman (1976; see especially p. 84) traced the form in question back to proto-Mije-Sokean and the Olmec diffusion sphere. Justeson, Norman, Campbell & Kaufman (1985:23, 57-59; henceforth, JNCK) agree that this word originated in the Mije-Sokean family, and argue that it spread from there to other Meso-American languages; in the case of lowland Mayan languages, JNCK suggest that the word spread in association with cultivated cacao or its products, and entered lowland Mayan languages during the Late Preclassic period. The basis for this scenario was as follows. Using published materials available between 1959 and 1963, Kaufman (1963ms) reconstructed a vocabulary of about 600 proto-Mijean, proto-Sokean, and proto-Mije-Sokean words and affixes. Among them was the reconstruction of *kakawa as the proto-Mije-Sokean word for ‘cacao’, along with words for a large number of other lowland cultigens. Work by Kaufman and Campbell in the 1960s and 1970s showed that many of these Mije-Sokean words appeared in other Meso-American language families, in which they were not reconstructible to the earliest stages. In fact, Mije-Sokean vocabulary proved to be found in every language family in Meso-America, from Tarasko in the north to Xinkan in the south,4 and this influence was early enough that the terms are reconstructible to early stages in the histories of those families. *kakawa was among these widely diffused Mije-Sokean words. The diffused words are found in a variety of semantic domains: they include words for plants, animals, tools, food preparation, the calendar and Kaufman & Justeson2 The word for ‘cacao’ numerical calculation, and kinship and other social roles. The most numerous of these borrowings are in names for plants and animals; more specifically, they are names of domesticated lowland plants and animals, and for those wild plants and animals that are part of the Meso-American ritual calendar. No other language families in Meso-America had the impact that Mije-Sokean had, either in the range of linguistic families they affected or in the number of items that were borrowed from them, until late in prehispanic Meso-American history when Nawa loans began to be widely adopted, sometimes through the vehicle of Spanish. Some of the Mije-Sokean loans probably go back to the influence of Olmecs, while others are attributable to a post-Olmec era of Mije-Sokean influence. These results were presented by Campbell & Kaufman (1976)5 and, in the case of loans into lowland Mayan languages, by JNCK. The case of Mije-Sokean loans into northern Mesoamerica is discussed by Kaufman (2000-2004ms) and is summarized by Justeson & Kaufman (in press). Regarding the word *kakaw(a) in particular, JNCK show that this word was diffused in the post-Olmec era. It was diffused at an early stage; it is reconstructible in proto-Greater Tzeltalan, the common ancestor of the Ch’olan and Tzeltalan languages, as *kakaw. This word must have diffused into lowland Mayan languages in post-Olmec times, probably during the Late Preclassic (400 BCE - 200 CE); it is attested in Mayan hieroglyphic texts by 400 CE (see Stuart, this volume). The evidence for the date is as follows. Had it been adopted before the shift of Western Mayan *k(’) to pGTz *ch(’), it would have showed up as chu-chu-w* in proto-Ch’olan and proto-Tzeltalan; its borrowing therefore post-dated that shift. The k(’) to *ch(’) shift seems to have taken place by the end of the Late Preclassic (ca. 200 CE), given that the phonetic sign chi was used for the day Deer (via GTz *chij < pM *kehj ‘deer’) on the terminal Late Postclassic Uaxactun murals. The shift probably postdated the Middle Preclassic. On archaeological grounds, Oaxacan influence on lowland Mayan is not recognized in Olmec times, nor even before the middle of the Middle Preclassic. But proto-Sapoteko *mma=ni7 ‘large animal’ (itself from Kaufman & Justeson3 The word for ‘cacao’ proto-Sokean *mu-u7a ‘deer’ + *ni, an Oto-Mangean level element that means ‘alive’ and became used as a preposed classifier for animals in some forms of Sapoteko) was borrowed into Greater Lowland Mayan as the day name #manik’ before the *k(’) to *ch(’) shift, since this name shows up in colonial Ch’olan records as <manich>. Archaeologically, Zapotecs had no apparent impact outside their immediate neighborhood until the Monte Alban I phase (400 - 200 BCE), so the borrowing of the Zapotec term by Mayans presumably dates to 400 BCE or later. A native word for ‘cacao’, *pe:q, existed in Mayan languages, including Greater Tzeltalan, before being largely displaced by the diffused *kakaw. The word *pe:q survives in K’iche’an with the meaning ‘uncultivated cacao’, suggesting that the spread of *kakaw may have been associated with the spread of cacao cultivation, or of its rising economic importance.6 It evidently survived as *pe:k in proto-Greater Tzeltalan, since it later shifted to *pi:k in Ch’olan in the meaning ‘8000’; the semantic association derives from the use of gunny sacks to store large numbers of cacao beans.7 The lowland Mayan use of cacao as a beverage is attested archaeologically during this era, going back to at least 600 BCE (Hurst et al. 2002). The widespread and early diffusion of this term into a large number of Meso-American languages and language families is consistent with what is known about the diffusion of words for other cultigens from Mije-Sokean languages, and with what is known archaeologically about the diffusion of cultivated cacao. In contrast, no words for cultigens are known to have diffused so widely at such an early date from any other language family. In addition, one of the prime areas of cacao cultivation, in the lowlands of Tabasco, was part of the (Mije-Sokean) Olmec heartland, where Gulf Sokean languages are still spoken today. These facts provide strong circumstantial support for the independently motivated hypothesis that this word is native to the Mije-Sokean family, and diffused into other Meso-American languages, ultimately, from speakers of one or more Mije-Sokean languages. In fact, setting aside the Kaufman & Justeson4 The word for ‘cacao’ contested case of *kakawa, no currently reconstructed proto-Mijean, proto- Sokean, or proto-Mije-Sokean term has a demonstrated foreign origin, so any alternative to a Mije-Sokean source requires substantial independent evidence. 2. A recent alternative hypothesis In a recent article, Dakin & Wichmann (2000) claim that the word *kakawa is not original in Mije-Sokean, and that, instead, it developed in Yuta-Nawan and diffused into other Meso-American languages from the Nawa form. These conclusions are based on linguistic arguments: Wichmann’s arguments that a Mije-Sokean origin is inconsistent with internal Mije-Sokean linguistic data, and Dakin’s arguments that there is a satisfactory Yuta-Nawan etymology for the Nawa form.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The PARI Journal Vol. XIV, No. 2
    ThePARIJournal A quarterly publication of the Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Volume XIV, No. 2, Fall 2013 Mesoamerican Lexical Calques in Ancient Maya Writing and Imagery In This Issue: CHRISTOPHE HELMKE University of Copenhagen Mesoamerican Lexical Calques Introduction ancient cultural interactions which might otherwise go undetected. in Ancient Maya The process of calquing is a fascinating What follows is a preliminary treat- Writing and Imagery aspect of linguistics since it attests to ment of a small sample of Mesoamerican contacts between differing languages by lexical calques as attested in the glyphic and manifests itself in a variety of guises. Christophe Helmke corpus of the ancient Maya. The present Calquing involves loaning or transferring PAGES 1-15 treatment is not intended to be exhaus- items of vocabulary and even phonetic tive; instead it provides an insight into • and syntactic traits from one language 1 the types, antiquity, and longevity of to another. Here I would like to explore The Further Mesoamerican calques in the hopes that lexical calques, which is to say the loaning Adventures of Merle this foray may stimulate additional and of vocabulary items, not as loanwords, (continued) more in-depth treatment in the future. but by means of translating their mean- by ing from one language to another. In this Merle Greene sense calques can be thought of as “loan Calques in Mesoamerica Robertson translations,” in which only the semantic Lexical calques have occupied a privileged PAGES 16-20 dimension is borrowed. Calques, unlike place in the definition of Mesoamerica as a loanwords, are not liable to direct phono- linguistic area (Campbell et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward "Linguistic Archaeology"
    Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 27 3-26-1982 Toward "Linguistic Archaeology" John L. Sorenson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Sorenson, John L. (1982) "Toward "Linguistic Archaeology"," Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 , Article 27. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls/vol8/iss1/27 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Toward "Linguistic Archaeology" John L. Sorenson Department of Anthropology Brigham Young University The study of lexicons for cultural content has a long history in linguistics, of course. The primary aims of such study have been either the description of a particular cultural scene, such as the Indo-European homeland, or else the reconstruction of language relationships within a family of languages. Nearly all of these considerations have been central or incidental to the historical concerns of linguists. The archaeologists and historians have been, for the most part, bystanders in the process. This paper maintains that a wide range of problems still remains to be attacked by linguistic means, problems of great concern to archaeologists. I propose increased cooperation between linguists and archaeologists which will redound mainly, but not exclusively, to the benefit of the latter. Some thirty years ago a similar linkage of interests took place in which physical scientists came to the aid of the archaeologists (especially with the advent of radiocarbon dating) only to find that a challenging new subfield of research was opened up to the former in the process.
    [Show full text]
  • A Linguistic Look at the Olmecs Author(S): Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman Source: American Antiquity, Vol
    Society for American Archaeology A Linguistic Look at the Olmecs Author(s): Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 1976), pp. 80-89 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279044 Accessed: 24/02/2010 18:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity. http://www.jstor.org 80 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 41, No. 1, 1976] Palomino, Aquiles Smith, Augustus Ledyard, and Alfred V.
    [Show full text]
  • Otomanguean Historical Linguistics: Past, Present and Prospects for the Future
    Campbell, Eric W. 2017. Otomanguean historical linguistics: past, present and prospects for the future. Language & Linguistics Compass 11: e12240. -- this copy may differ slightly from published version 1 Otomanguean historical linguistics: past, present and prospects for the future 2 Abstract 3 Among the linguistic lineages of Mesoamerica, the Otomanguean family is the most diverse 4 and most widely spread. Long occupying a central position in one of the cradles of human 5 civilization, speakers of Otomanguean languages have played important roles in the region, 6 about which their languages have much to tell. However, Otomanguean is perhaps the least 7 understood of the major Mesoamerican language families, due to its great diversity, the 8 remarkable structural complexity of Otomanguean languages, and the history of the field of 9 Otomanguean historical linguistics, which has seen great achievement alternating with periodic 10 controversy and doubt. With a focus on the higher levels and more ancient time depths of the 11 family, this article surveys Otomanguean historical linguistic work and presents a state of the 12 art perspective on Otomanguean classification, reconstruction, linguistic prehistory, remaining 13 challenges, and prospects for the future. 14 1 Introduction 15 Otomanguean is an expansive language family that has been centered around the core of the 16 Mesoamerican cultural (Kirchhoff 1967[1943]) and linguistic area (Campbell et al. 1986) for 17 as long as we can detect. It extends a little beyond the northern limits of Mesoamerica into the 18 state of San Luis Potosí, Mexico (Pame), and it previously reached as far south as the Gulf of 19 Nicoya along the Pacific slope of Costa Rica (Mangue).
    [Show full text]
  • A Drawing of the Teotihuacan-Style Vessel at the University of Kansas Introduced to Mesoamericanists by the Late Erik Boot
    Glyph Dwellers Report 59 June 2018 A Drawing of the Teotihuacan-style Vessel at the University of Kansas Introduced to Mesoamericanists by the Late Erik Boot David F. Mora Marín University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This brief note serves the purpose of providing a line drawing of the inscription on the Teotihuacan-style ceramic vessel housed in the archaeological collection of the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. The vessel, cataloged as A0668-0593, and its inscription were initially described in detail by Erik Boot in an unpublished manuscript dated to October 25th, 2011, henceforth (Boot 2011). Both Boot and the present author have relied on the generosity of Dr. Mary J. Adair, Senior Curator of Archaeology, for information pertaining to the vessel, as well as, in the present author’s case, the possibility of visiting the collection and examining the vessel in person on two days in January 2016. The origin of Mesoamerican writing can be traced back to the Early Formative period, starting around 1200 BCE, in the form of text-formatted remains on a variety of media, such as cylindrical clay roller stamps, clay figurines, stone monuments, painted cave walls, and greenstone objects, among other media. It seems likely that by ca. 650 BCE the Olmecs had developed some form of writing that had a direct influence on the fully glottographic scripts that emerged by ca. 400-300 BCE: Zapotec writing in the Valley of Oaxaca; Epi-Olmec writing in the Gulf Coast of Mexico and the highlands of Chiapas; Greater Izapan writing in the Pacific piedmont and coasts of Chiapas and Guatemala; and Lowland Mayan writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Proto-Uto-Aztecans on Their Way to the Proto-Aztecan Homeland: Linguistic Evidence*
    Albert Davletshin Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow) Proto-Uto-Aztecans on their way to the Proto-Aztecan homeland: linguistic evidence* The Uto-Aztecan language family is one of the largest genetically related groups of the Americas, whose speakers inhabited a vast territory, extending from the state of Oregon to Panama. The paper is based on the observation that six Proto-Uto-Aztecan animal names re- ceived the augemnt *­yoː in Proto-Aztecan. This augment can be interpreted as a suffix of ab- stract possession which derives abstract nouns and indicates possession of the object or quality. Thus, Proto-Aztecan ‘coyote’ *koyoː- literaly means ‘one of the coyote’s, somewhat like the coyote’, ‘owl’ *tkoloː- ‘one of the owl’s, somewhat like the owl’, etc. This change in meaning implies that the Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland must have been ecologically different from the place to which speakers of Proto-Aztecan later migrated. Keywordsː Uto-Aztecan languages, Aztecan languages, Mesoamerican linguistics, prehistoric migrations, original homeland reconstruction. The Uto-Aztecan language family is one of the largest genetically related language groups of the Americas (Campbell 1997: 133–137). According to conservative estimates, it consists of over 30 individual languages, whose speakers inhabited the vast territory extending from the state of Oregon to Panama (Fig. 1). The distance as the crow flies between the two places is over 5500 km. One glottochronological estimate places the break-up of Proto-Uto-Aztecan at around 5,000 years ago (48 minimum centuries of divergence according to Terrence Kaufman 1976: 73; see also Miller 1984), while the estimate of Holman, Brown et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mayan Languages Mayan History and Comparison
    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. Lyle Campbell Mayan history and comparison CHAPTER 3 MAYAN HISTORY AND COMPARISON Lyle Campbell 1 INTRODUCTION The intention of this chapter is to present an overview of Mayan historical and compar- ative linguistics and to point to areas where further investigation and fresh thinking may prove rewarding.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Contact and Change in Mesoamerica and Beyond. Ed. by Karen Dakin, Claudia Parodi, and Natalie Operstein
    REVIEWS 565 Ofulue , Christine I., and David O. Esizimetor . 2010. IFRA Nigeria: Guide to standard Naijá orthography. Ibadan: Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan. Online: https://ifra-nigeria.org/research -programs/naijasyncor/naija-languej-akedemi . Sala , Bonaventure M. 2009. Writing in Cameroon Pidgin English: Begging the question. English Today 25.11–17. DOI: 10.1017/S0266078409000133 . Schneider , Gilbert Donald . 1966. West African Pidgin-English: A descriptive linguistic analysis with texts and glossary from the Cameroon area . Athens: University of Ohio. Todd , Loreto . 1969. Pidgin English of West Cameroon. Camelang 1.35–57. Yakpo , Kofi . 2009. A grammar of Pichi . Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2066/79407. Yakpo , Kofi . 2012. Reiteration in Pichi: Forms, functions and areal-typological perspectives. The mor - phosyntax of reiteration in creole and non-creole languages (Creole language library 43), ed. by Enoch O. Aboh, Norval Smith, and Anne Zribi-Hertz, 251–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [[email protected]] Language contact and change in Mesoamerica and beyond. Ed. by Karen Dakin, Claudia Parodi, and Natalie Operstein . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017. Pp. xv, 433. ISBN 9789027259509. $149 (Hb). Reviewed by Carolyn J. MacKay , Ball State University Language contact and change in Mesoamerica and beyond (hereafter LCCMB ) presents se - lected contributions from the 2013 workshop on ‘Amerindian Languages in Contact Situations: Spanish-American Perspectives’, held at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics, and from the special session on ‘Language Contact in Mesoamerica’ at the meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, also in 2013. The book addresses the relative lack of publications focusing on language contact in an area of extreme linguistic diver - sity.
    [Show full text]
  • Mayan Historical Linguistics in a New Age Danny Law* Vanderbilt University
    Language and Linguistics Compass 7/3 (2013): 141–156, 10.1111/lnc3.12012 Mayan Historical Linguistics in a New Age Danny Law* Vanderbilt University Abstract Mayan historical linguistic research has progressed at a healthy pace since the 1970s. The recent decipherment of ancient Maya hieroglyphic writing and the publication, in the last decade, of a large cohort of high quality linguistic descriptions of several Mayan languages, many of them writ- ten by native speakers of those languages, have opened a floodgate of new linguistic data that promises to revolutionize our understanding of the history of the language family. In particular, recent research has shown the Mayan region to have been a remarkably dynamic zone of language contact. Contact among Mayan languages has the potential to illuminate mechanisms and con- straints on language contact between related languages. New data and attention to contact phe- nomena may also help clarify long-standing disagreements about the historical relationships among Mayan languages, particularly Wastek, Tojol-ab’al, and the language of the hieroglyphs, all of which have been an important impetus for historical linguistic research in the past decades. 1. Introduction There has been a surge in recent years of popular interest in the Maya. The media atten- tion generated by the pop-cultural ‘2012 Phenomenon’1 has made ‘‘Mayan Apocalypse’’ and ‘‘B’aktun’’ worldwide buzzwords, listed as number four on the Global Language Monitor’s ‘‘Top Words of 2012’’2. Historical linguistics scholarship on Mayan languages is also experiencing a surge of new research which builds on, and in some cases calls into question, the large body of work carried out particularly in the 1970s and 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com10/01/2021 01:45:03AM Via Free Access
    journal of language contact 12 (2019) 660-706 brill.com/jlc On the Intrusion of the Spanish Preposition de into the Languages of Mexico Nicole Hober Bremen University [email protected] Abstract In this article, I examine the intrusion of the Spanish preposition de into the languages of Mexico. Following Matras and Sakel (2007), I apply the distinction of matter (mat) and pattern (pat). The exploration of the 35 Archivo de lenguas indígenas de México publications which serve as a comparable database shows that Chontal, Mexicanero, Nahuatl de Acaxochitlán, Otomi, Yucatec, Zoque, and Zapotec, have borrowed de or a variant thereof. All languages give evidence of combined mat/pat-borrowing, while five of the seven languages also exhibit mat-borrowing only. The results demonstrate that none of the replica languages fully complies with the Spanish pattern regarding the usage of de. Indeed, it is essential to identify the functional domain of de in each recipient language separately. Further, the findings are briefly reviewed in light of pro- cessing factors corroborating the prominent role of frequency in language change. Keywords Mesoamerica – language contact – typological change – grammatical borrowing – Romancisation – processing factors 1 Introduction This empirical paper discusses the ongoing linguistic Hispanisation of the lan- guages of Mexico via borrowing in the domain of grammar. The focus is on the fate of the Spanish preposition de in language-contact situations involving Me- soamerican languages as recipient languages. The functions of the borrowed preposition in the recipient languages and its influence on their structures are © Nicole Hober, 2020 | doi:10.1163/19552629-01203004 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the prevailing cc-by-nc License at the time of publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesoamerican Historical Linguistics and Distant Genetic Relationship: Getting It Straight
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229789004 Mesoamerican Historical Linguistics and Distant Genetic Relationship: Getting It Straight Article in American Anthropologist · October 2009 DOI: 10.1525/aa.1983.85.2.02a00080 CITATIONS READS 10 51 2 authors, including: Lyle Campbell University of Hawai'i System 136 PUBLICATIONS 2,540 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Lyle Campbell on 10 April 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Mesoamerican Historical Linguistics and Distant Genetic Relationship: Getting It Straight Author(s): Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 85, No. 2 (Jun., 1983), pp. 362-372 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/676320 Accessed: 24/02/2010 18:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
    [Show full text]
  • Campbell CV 2021
    CURRICULUM VITAE Lyle Campbell (2021) Address: Department of Linguistics, University of Hawai'i Mānoa 1890 East-West RoaD, Moore Hall 569 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Email: lylecamp at hawaii dot eDu Education 1971 Ph.D. Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) 1967 M.A. Linguistics, University of Washington 1966 B.A. Archaeology (& Anthropology) Employment 2010-2017: Professor of Linguistics, University of Hawai‘i Mānoa (emeritus, 2017-present) 2006-2010: Presidential Professor, University of Utah 2004-2010: Professor of Linguistics, and Director of Center for American InDian Languages, University of Utah 1994-2004: Professor of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand 1989-94: Louisiana State University, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Spanish 1974-89: State University of New York, Albany; from assistant to full professor of Anthropology, Linguistics, Spanish, anD Latin American StuDies 1971-74: University of Missouri, assistant professor of Anthropology, Linguistics, and Behavioral Research. Publications Books: 2021 [In press] Linguist on the Loose: Fieldwork in Focus. EDinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2020 Nivaclé Grammar. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. (Lyle Campbell, Luis Díaz, anD FernanDo Ángel.) 2020 Historical Linguistics: an Introduction. (4th edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, and CambriDge, MA: MIT Press. (3rd edition 2013, 2nd edition 2004, 1st edition 1998.) [Chinese edition, 2007.] 2020 Instructor's Manual for Historical Linguistics. (2nd edition.) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; CambriDge: MIT Press. (Electronic, to accompany Historical Linguistics: an Introduction, 4th edition. Manual 1st edition 2013.). 2018 Handbook of Endangered Languages, eDiteD by Kenneth Rehg and Lyle Campbell. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2018 Language isolates, eDiteD by Lyle Campbell.
    [Show full text]