The Languages of South American Indians
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
_> I oox-o Co to .^ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION U S BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 143 HANDBOOK OF SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS Julian H. Steward, Editor Volume 6 PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, LINGUISTICS AND CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS Prepared in Cooperation With the United States Department of State as a Project of the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1950 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing 0£Gice, Washington 25, D. C Price $5.00 _ Part 3. The Languages of South American Indians By J. Alden Mason CONTENTS PAGE PAGE Introduction 159 Yunca-Puruhdn 193 Sources 169 Yunca 194 Puruhd The Meso-Anxerican languages- 173 195 Canari Hokan-Siouan 173 (Canyari) 195 Ataldn Macro-Penutian 173 195 Utaztecan 174 Sec, Sechura, or Talldn 196 Macro-Otomanguean 174 Kechumaran 196 Lencan, Jicaquean, and Quechua 197 Payan 174 Aymara 200 Macro-Chibchan 174 Chiquitoan 200 Chibchan 175 Macro-Guaicuruan 201 Chibchan languages of Cen- Mataco-Macd 202 tral America 176 Mataco 202 Chibcha proper 178 Macd (Enimagd, Coch- Colombian subgroup 179 aboth) 203 Inter-Andine group 179 Guaicurii (Waicurii) 204 Barbacoa group 180 Lule-Vilelan 206 Andaki (Andaquf) 181 Tonocote, Matard,, and Gua- Betoi group 181 card 208 Languages probably of Chibchan Arawakan 208 aflBnities 184 Chan6 and Chand, 216 Panzaleo 184 Languages of probable Arawakan Cara and Caranki 184 affinities 216 Kijo (Quijo) 184 Misumalpan 184 Araud group 216 Cofdn (Kofane) 186 Apolista or Lapachu 217 Amuesha 217 Languages of doubtful Chibchan Tucuna (Tikuna) 218 relationships 186 Tarumd 218 Coche (Mocoa) 186 Tacana _ 218 Esmeralda 187 Tairona and Chimila 187 Languages of possible Arawakan Yurumanguf 188 relationships 221 Timote 188 Tuyuneri 221 Candoshi, Chirino, and Mur- Jirajara 221 ato 191 Jfvaro 222 Chol6n 192 Uru-Chipaya-Pukina 224 Hibito 192 Ochosuma 225 Copall^n 192 Chango and Coast Uru_ 225 Aconipa (Akonipa) 193 Cariban 226 157 Extraído do vol. 6 do Handbook of South American Indians, digitalizado pelo Internet Archive. Disponível em http://www.etnolinguistica.org/hsai 158 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143 Languages of probable Cariban Northern tropical, etc—Con. aflSliations 231 Panoan—Continued Choc6, and Cariban of Co- Aguano 271 lombia 232 Chamicuro 271 Peba-Yagua 233 Southern tropical Lowland fami- Arda 234 lies of presumed independence. 271 Yuma 235 Unclassified languages of Palmella 235 Eastern Peru 271 Yuri (Juri)._ 235 Small "families" of Bolivia. 272 Pimenteira 236 Itonaman 272 Macro-Tupf-Guaranian 236 Canichanan 272 Tupf-Guaranian 236 Cayuvavan 273 Yurimagua (Zurima- Moviman 273 gua) 240 Mosetenan 274 Arikem 240 Lecan 274 Miranyan or Boran 243 Yuracarean 275 Witotoan 244 Small languages of the Nonuya 245 Brazil-Bolivia border Muenane 246 (Havari, Masdca, Capi- Fitita 246 shand., Purubord, Ma- Orej6n 246 shubi, etc.) 275 Coeruna 246 Catukinan 276 Andoke 246 Chapacuran 277 Resigero 247 Wanyam (Huanam) and Zdparoan 247 CabishI (Kabidi) 279 Omurano (Roamaina?). 250 Mascoian 279 Sabela.__ 251 Zamucoan 280 Canelo 251 Guatoan 281 Awishira 252 Bororoan and Otuke 282 Northern tropical Lowland fami- Coravecaand Covareca; lies of presumed independence. 252 Curucaneca and Cu- Warrauan 252 ruminaca 283 Auak^an 253 Nambicuaran 283 Calianan 253 Cabishi 285 Macuan 253 Muran 285 Shiriandn 254 Matanawl _ 285 Sdlivan, Macu, and Piar6a-_ 254 Trumaian 286 Pamigua and Tinigua 255 Carajdn 286 Otomacan, Guamo or Guama Caririan 286 and Yaruran 255 Macro-Ge 287 Guahiban 256 Ge 288 Puinavean or Macii 257 Caingang 291 Tucanoan (Betoyan) 258 Camacdn, Mashacali, and Goto 261 Puri (Coroado) 293 Cahuapanan 261 Camacdn 294 Muniche 262 Mashacali 295 Panoan 262 Purl (Coroado) 295 The Chama languages.. 263 Patash6 296 Cashibo 264 Malall. 297 Mayoruna 269 Corop6 298 Itucale, Simacu, and Botocudo - 298 Urarina __. 270 Shavant6 (Chavant6, Savante)-- 299 Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 159 PAGE PAGE Shavant^—Continued Southernmost languages—Con, Oti 299 Charrua, Kerandf, Chand, Opay6 300 etc—Continued Cucurd 300 Chand__ 305 Guaitacdn 300 Allentiac or Huarpean 306 Small languages of the Pernam- Sanavir6n and Come- buco region (Fulni6, Natu, ching6nan 307 Pancaruru, Shoc6, Shucurii, Sanavir6n__ 307 Tushd, Carapat6, Payacii, Te- Comeching6n 307 rememb6, and Tarairiu or Araucanian 307 Ochucayana) 301 Chono 309 Southernmost languages 302 Puelchean 309 Ataguitan 302 Het (Chechehet) 309 Atacama 302 Chonan or Tewelche (Tehuel- Omawaca (Omahuaca)_ 303 che) and Ona 310 Diaguita or Calchaquf _ 303 Yahganan 311 Charrua, Kerandf, Chand, Alacalufan 311 etc - 304 Bibliography 312 INTRODUCTION » Even a relatively short sketch of the linguistic conditions of a large area should cover such points as: general features—phonetic, morphological, and lexical—that characterize the languages, and the main points in which they differ from languages of other regions; brief digests of the grammar and phonetics of each independent famUy or at least of the more important ones; a classification of these families in groups according to phonetic and morphological type; a classification of the component languages of each family in their proper subdivisions as dialects, languages, groups, and stocks, according to degree of linguistic relationship; and a reconstruction of linguistic history and migrations. As regards the aboriginal languages of South America it must be understood at the outset that, as comparatively little reliable data are available upon them, none of the above points can be treated with any approach to thoroughness, and on most of them little can be said at present. South American Indian languages have no uniform or even usual characteristics that differentiate them from North American lan- guages. The same may be said of American languages fundamentally, as opposed to Old World languages. Languages were formerly grouped into categories according to morphological pattern: isolating, agglutinating, polysynthetic, and inflective, with an implication of evolution and betterment toward the inflecting ideal—of course, of • Under the title of "Status and Problems of Research in the Native Languages of South America" this Introduction, with slight revision, was read at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at Cleveland, Ohio, September 15, 1944, as the author's vice-presidential address as incoming chairman of Section H, the section on anthropology. It was later published in Science, vol. 101, No. 2620, pp. 259-264, March 16, 1945. 160 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143 our own Indo-European languages. However, research has shown that, so far as there has been any evolution, the isolating is the last, not the first stage. American languages were once classed with the polysynthetic, with agglutinative tendencies. No such hard-and-fast distinctions can be made; few languages belong definitely to one or another class, and most of them show traits of several classes. This applies equally well to American and to Old World languages; some show tendencies toward inflection, more toward polysynthesis. It is impossible to give any description that would characterize the majority of American Indian languages or contrast them with Old World languages, either from a morphological or a phonetic point of view. Incorporation (of the nominal or pronominal object) was formerly considered one of the characteristics of American languages; this also is missing in many of them. A classification of languages according to patterns and types being impossible, the only possible one is genetic, based on relationship, common origin, and linguistic history.^ The classification of human groups according to their languages is now accepted as the best system for reconstructing historical connec- tions. Cultural elements are too easUy adopted to have much histori- cal value; somatological characteristics, though more permanent than Unguistic ones, are less readily identifiable in mixture. On the other hand, a proved relationship of two languages at present widely sepa- rated indicates a former close connection or identity of the ancestors of their speakers and thus affords important data on human migration. But proof of linguistic relationship is fraught with innumerable difiiculties. It is seldom absolute, but depends on acceptance by scholars; on the other hand, it is impossible to prove that two lan- guages are not related. Merely to ascertain the connection between two languages is far from sufficient to establish a good historical picture. If we knew no more than that Spanish, Italian, German, and Russian are related it would mean little. All the languages of South America may be related; all those of aU America may be; conceivably aU languages in the world may eventually be proved to have a common descent. In the same sense, all mammals are related, all animals are related, all life had a common origin. Relationship means little unless we know degree and nearness of relationship. A direct comparison of two distantly related languages seldom yields convincing proof of their connection. A comparison of Polish and English would probably result in a negative decision; it is only because we know the historical linguistics of the Indo-European lan- > On the classification of languages, and of American Indian languages in particular, see Boas, 1911; Hoijer, 1941; Mason, 1940; Voegelin, 1941; and references and bibliographies therein. • Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 161 guages well, with reconstructed