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 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 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.

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].

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org [85,1983] ANTHROPOLOGIST AMERICAN believe 362 It is hard to critically such proposals. of the conceptual weak- Sapir,Edward thatare WB unaware York: World Book. spinning, since in more 1921Language. New nesstheirof hypothesis are expressed to the Scollon,Ronald thanonearticle, thanks of of Variability in Chipe- versions some 1979236 Years of readersof prepublication InternationalJournal strenously to the methodology wyanConsonants. whomobjected articles Linguistics 45: 332- 342. drawn in those American Scollon usedandconclusions and Suzanne B. K. personal communication). Scollon,Ronald, San Fran- (anonymous, among com- 1979Linguistic Convergence. 1.Chance. Chance similarities Press. much more serious prob- cisco:Academic paredlanguages is a of W. by WB's (1981) repetition Stocking,George Ameri- lemthanimplied matching Plan for the Study of claim that with strict 1974The Boas and Bender's(1969) per 250 In Traditions chance lexical match canIndian . criteriaonly one strict D. Hymes, ed. pp. 454-484. and with less Paradigms. itemsshould be expected, is a Indiana University Press. or two per 100. This Bloomington: criteriaonly one the H. H. given the history of Thoresen,Timothy strangemaneuver, Piper and Calling the relatives of Mayan 1975Paying the Be- searchfor distant genetic of the History of the languages. Wonderly Tune. Journal andother Mesoamerican 11:255-275. to the Macro-Mayan havioralSciences (1953:108), in response be- L. 100 accidental similarities Trager,George Inter- proposal,found a list of Loan-Words in Taos. and Zoque (based on 1944Spanish Linguistics tweenEnglish and Miller Journal of American Zoque items); Callaghan national about2,000 with English 10:144-158. (1962)parodied Macro-Mixtecan Campbell (1973) refuted Zuckerman,Harriet in similarities;and un- and Social Processes by showing that several 1974 Cognitive Bender'sclaims Bender's American Sociological share far more than ScientiElcDiscovery. relatedlanguages more meetings, Montreal. one to expect. To give Association claimswould allow (in the this discussion, we compare substanceto and Mixe- Finnish with the Mayan appendix) forms presented in Zoquean(WB's Zoquean) Historical 1979 (henceforth BW Mesoamerican Brownand Witkowski Mayan- and Distant evidence of their proposed Linguistics 1979)as of these ac- hypothesis. Perhaps some Genetic Relationship: Zoquean fetching than matchings are more It Straight cidental examples demon- Getting but as a whole these others, are indeed an im- stratethat chance similarities in LYLE CAMPBELL distant genetic proposals portantproblem for of Autonoma de Mexico the BW (1979) proposal Untsersidad Nacional generaland for chance in particular, and that Mayan-Zoquean find. TERRENCE KAUFMAN are not difficult to soundcorrespondences in Fin- UnzversZtyof Pitts burgh plausible matchings Wefind reasonably proposed by of the 62 cognate sets mis- nishfor most 2 SO chance number of fundamental far more than the There are a (AA BW 1979, we Witkowski and Brown's Bender (1969) . Moreover, understandingsin predicted by only the henceforth WB 1981) to only Finnish and to 83:905-911, 981, AA limitedourselves saying and Kaufman, 1979. It goes without responseto our (Campbell 62forms of BW be discussion of their impressive picture could 82:850-857, 1980) that a much more mere 62 AA 80:942-944, 1978, we gone beyond the and Brown, put together had from (Witkowski proposed Mesoamerican or had we cited forms henceforthWB 1978) to formsof BW 1979 (or even their methods of trying of all the Finno-Ugric languagephylum and We the vocabularies BW genetic relationship. it will be noticed that demonstrate distant Uralic) languages; of all issues here. as targets the vocabularies hope to clarify these are 1979 permitted lan- objection to WB's efforts and all the Mixe-Zoquean Our most serious for try- the Mayan insufficiently strict criteria that by using relationships, guages. say that Mayan demonstrate distant genetic WB (1981 :907) themselves ing to novices and non- agreements are will lead astray linguistic and Mixe-Zoquean vocabulary they equipped to evaluate linguists who are not RESEARCH REPORTS 363 probably no greater than lONo;with matchings most Germanic languages changed *a to e no better than those presented by BW 1979, under influence of the y(a), which was later lost. chance coupled with other factors (loans, A comparison of Finnish patya, "mattress," onomatopoeia, sound syrnbolism, universals, with English bed reveals no identical correspon- etc.) is indeed sufficient to raise serious doubts. dences, not even in meaning. This example il- 2. DzJfusion.WB (1981:906) say several mis- lustrates how sounds can be different, though leading things about loan words. They believe the similarity in sounds is still readily recog- that ancient loan words suffer the same attrition nized. Greater, less recognizable differences are from the vocabulary as native lexical items and illustrated in a comparison of modern Finnish thus the problem of older loans is less severe hakea "to get, obtain, fetch, look for" with than it might first appear. Loans do undergo English seek (/sik/) and German suchen change and loss just as native etyma, but that (/zu:xan/). The Finnish loan is from pre-Proto- does not make them less a problem; if anything Germanic *sa:keya(cf. Proto-Indian-European it makes them more of a problem. It hardly *sa:g-), which by Proto-Germanic times had seems necessary to cite examples of persistent become *so:kya(*a: to *o:), and other changes old loans; we presented many (Campbell and produced the current forrns (e.g., English Kaufman 1976) involving precisely the lan- umlaut, German voicing of s, the German guages in question here, Mayan and Mixe- change of k to x, and vowel shifts in both, etc.). Zoquean. With Finnish again as our devil's ad- The form was borrowed into pre-Proto-Finnic vocate, we mention others. Proto-Finno-Ugric as *sake-, "to fetch, seek," which became hake- borrowed many items from its Indo-European via the late Proto-Finnic change of *s to *h neighbors, which still exist in Finnish vocab- (Koivulehto 1980). One could hardly call the ulary, for example, grain, honey, bee, orphan, Finnish h/ German z or the Finnish a/ English pig, horn, hundred, hammer, sheep, and l/ German u correspondences mere "surface" many others (Itkonen 1966). Anyone unduly similarities (WB 1981:906), yet such differences impressed by these should consider the still- are not uncommon in borrowed forms. surviving Germanic and Baltic loans in Finnish, Finally, although WB (1981:907) claim that from 1000 to 500 B.C. (the presumed period of they eliminated any forms which on distribu- our Mixe-Zoquean loans in tional or other grounds seemed likely candidates [Campbell and Kaufman 1976]), for example, for loans, several were missed. We (Campbell daughter, sister, mother, bride, tooth, thigh, and Kaufman 1980) did not list these in our (body) hair, neck, navel, slow, throw, to get response because we assumed their 62 forms to (obtain), ill, big, forehead (Anttila 1972:155- be sufficiently invalidated on other grounds. 164; Koivulehto 1980). Nevertheless, to take one obvious example, WB (1981:906) also say that lexical diffusion BW's (1979) number (43) coati is such a loan; is highly compatible with very similar sound cor- Yucatec cifk is bowwoed from Mixe-Zoquean respondences. This may be true in many cases, (compare Proto-Mixe-Zoquean *#zku, BW's but sounds in borrowed forms may be far from 1979 proto-Zoquean *ci:k), while Cholti chzic nearly identical to the sounds of the donor (/ci?ik/, not the ci:k of BW 1979, since Cholan , for two reasons. First, they may be has no contrastive vowel length) is taken from modified to fit the phonological structure of the Yucatecan (cf . Proto-Mayan *kohtom and borrowing language; for example, since Mixe- ?'u#' "coati"). On distributional grounds alone, Zoquean has no native r nor initial consonant this form is very suspicious, and the clear Mayan clusters, Spanish cruz, "cross,"was borrowed in etyma involving forms unrelated to this in the adapted form in Texistepec Popoluca (Zoque) as other subgroups confirms this as a loan word. kunus, with n substituted for r. Second, once Other forms which are potential loans are BW's borrowed, loan words may suffer normal sound (1979) 12, 42, 46, and 54. changes (the older the loan, the greater the In the end, what is important is whether dif- probable number of changes), while the donor fusion accounts for any proposed cognates (with language may also undergo changes which which WB [1981:906] seem to agree), making modify the vocabulary source of the loan. For the statements about old loan attribution, ex- instance, again with Finnish examples, Finnish pected similar correspondences in loans, and patya (orthographic patja), "mattress,"was bor- distributional considerations all seem like face- rowed from Proto-Germanic *badya, "bed," saving red herrings, missing the real issue that where, due to the lack of voiced obstruents in unattended diffusion seriously complicates dis- Finnish, b and d were borrowed as p and t; later tant genetic proposals. 364 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [85, 1983] 3. Onownatopoeiaand sound symbolism. WB set (3), *cacfZy, which clearly involves plausible (1981:907) are clearly mistaken in their "doubt onomatopoeia, given the buzzing, zooming, that sound symbolism [sic, our onomatopoeia] is swishing character of flies which is reflected in as important as they [i.e., we] imply," as the extreme frequency of sibilant sounds in JZy demonstrated by their own examples. First, let words the world over, e.g.: Cavnena *ceta/ us clarify terms, then content. WB mistakenly *steta; Miskito (l?it; Chbcha ch.u; Atacama speak of sound symbolism for our onomato- chiacta; Jicaque chichis, Proto-Mazatec *cti3se3; poeia. Onomatopoeia involves forms which Ixcatec Pu3c?ya, Xinca usu; Totonac utsu, sound like their referents in nature, for exam- u:sum; Quechua usa; Chipibotsio; Huave sist; ple, English peep supposedly sounds like the ac- sa:yo:l-, Wintu yus, Pima Bajo sivihi, tual sound birds produce. Sound symbolism is Sumu tasas, sasa, usla, Lencan shirizir, tsirizir, quite distinct, referring to sounds which sym- shaishay; Subtiaba su:xa; Proto-Jicaque bolize directly some semantic attribute of the *(no)?oF',and so forth. (Cf. Totontepec Mixe referent, typically size, shape, or extent. We did gactf7y, si? mosca abeja, and o:s mosquito.) not discuss the perils of sound symbolism for dis- WB 1981 also say they fail to see the rationale tant genetic relationship, but it is nevertheless a for considering their ( 13) (BW 1979) proto- serious problem for the WB 1978 proposals, Maya-Zoquean *uk to drink as onomatopoetic; since several exhibit the reason is simply that similar forms occur sound symbolism, especially marked in with great frequency in the world's languages, Totonacan and Huave. For example, Huave and we suppose this recurrent similarity to be sound symbolism involves alternations of r/r, due to the sound of this activity in nature. Some ?/tc, s/st, o/e, and a/i, for example, -poros examples are: Quechua ukya, Takelma Pu:kW-, crunchy/ -peres (diminutive), ?ondok Yokutsan *?ukun-, Yuki Puk, Ye kho, Wappo wrinkled/cencek (diminutive), -rac spotted/-ric Buk'+,Coahuilteco ouxo, Sahaptian *?uku:n, (diminutis- ^, -ran?a? itch / -rinclct(diminutive), Wintu uk-um, Mutsun uk*si, Southern Sierra and so forth. (Stairs Kreger and Scharfe de Miwok Puhu, Rumsen uk, Kwakiutl k*oa:i, Stairs 1981). Totonac sound-symbolic alterna- Chemakum qu:?ili. (It should be noted that tions are k/q, tl/l/c, l/s/s, a/i, and a/u, for ex- water also has an extremely wide distribution of ample: Muk'k'u hollow/suk'uk'u (diminu- forms similar to these in the Americas.) The tive)/toq'oq'o (augmentative)/stuk'uk'uhollow, other forms we cited as potentially onomato- concave (augmentative), tci?ci:to heat/#i?#in at poetic have the same pattern of widespread heats a little, Mmukukuyellow/smukuku clear recurrent similarity. WB (1981:907) falsely yellow, sqapat pinole/ska?pa? pinolillo; twaqa/ assert that 'lall of the forms they [i.e., we] cite as tweqarswaka to tear out, ak-/aq- head, qi-/qa- attributable to sound symbolism [sic, read ono- back, lk'ak'a to cluck, cackle sk'ak'a (diminu- matopoeia] show regular phonological cor- tive)/Ck'ak'a(augmentative) (Aschmann 1973; respondences." In fact, it is the irregular cor- Reid and Bishop 1974). respondences which (among other things) sug- Sound symbolism has important conse- gests the onomatopoeia of their forms. For ex- quences for remote relationships. On the one ample, their (7) (BW 1979) proto-Maya- hand, it can create irregular correspondencesin Zoquean *ki:s fart, our example of related languages (see Campbell 1975), and on onomatopoeia to which WB (1981:907) most the other it can create greater apparent but strongly object, is represented by their proto- nongenetic similarity in unrelated languages. Mayan *ki:s, but with irregular reflexes: Given the very frequent symbolic interchanges Tzeltal-Tzotzil ?2S (C iS expected by regular cor- of q/k and of ?/c, also in Mesoamerica, there is respondences), Chol tiS (C expected), Tojolabal reason to be suspicious of WB's 1978 proposals, fzs (c expected), Veracruz Huastec tia (c ex- recalling that BW's 1979 Mayan-Zoquean is pected); vowel length in this forrn also varies ir- based on proposed correspondences among regularly throughout the family. Moreover, the these sounds. (See also Nichols 1971.) similarity of their proto-Zoquean *ci:s fart to WB 1981 miss the point about onomatopoeia "fart" forms in languages generally is sufficient entirely (though not ingenuously, we suspect). to warrant suspicion of onomatopoeia in this They ask if "flies go kac, kact" (p. 907) in case. Irregular correspondences apparently due reference to their number (3) (BW 1979) proto- to onomatopoeia account for BW's (1979) abili- Mayan-Zoquean *kaejZy (znsect). We had cited ty to construe two distinct cognate sets (35, 55) the example as potentially orwomatopoetic,but from one Proto-Mayan root, *xiq' to drown, with reference to their proto-Zoquean part of choke (their 35) *xi:q', (55) *xaq'. Therefore, RESEARCH REPORTS 365

BW's 1979 examples do not "show regular Mayan grasshopper(mistakenly called lobster)/ phonological correspondences"unless they refer proto-Zoquean shell; (23) proto-Mayan tree to their assumed Mayan and (Mixe-) Zoquean trunkJnumeral classzfier/proto-Zoquean tree; correspondences, which we obviously do not ac- (26) proto-Mayan to break/proto-Zoquean to cept. chop wood, to throw; (32) proto-Mayan fire/ Thus, WB (1981:907) get matters backward proto-Zoqueanto toast corn;(33) proto-Mayan when they say that "true sound symbolism [read (yellow)teeth/proto-Zoquean hard thing; (37) onomatopoeia] tends to destroy rather than proto-Mayan woman/proto-Zoquean grand- create regular phonological correspondences mother; proto-Mayan tongue/proto-Zoquean within and between language families." Regular edge (cheek); (44) proto-Mayan fox/proto- reflexes within an established family may be Zoquean dog; proto-Mayan palm tree/proto- diverted by onomatopoeia (as in the case of Zoquean wovenmat (called palm mat to suggest Mayan lart), creating instead greater cor- greater similarity); (48) proto-Mayanfoot (leg)/ respondence with the sound in nature than with proto-Zoquean base (buttocks); (50) proto- sounds in sister languages. However, when Mayan worm/proto-Zoquean ant; (51) proto- forms in independent families shift toward more Mayan to pierce/proto-Zoquean to enter; (52) onomatopoetic agreement with nature, non- proto-Mayan granary/proto-Zoquean house; genetic similarities are created, not destroyed. (57) proto-Mayan evil/proto-Zoquean witch; Therefore, for example, if Mayan and Mixe- etc. This is an inordinate amount of semantic Zoquean or any other language should show a shifting to assume when an attempt to demon- k-to-k correspondence in words for to drink, strate a relationship is being made, given the that correspondence cannot be taken as prima chance factor. facie evidence of genetic relationship given that WB 1981:907 present an interesting, but ut- the ks could be a response to the sound of drink- terly false defense of nonidentical semantic . ng ln. nature. matches, saying that nonidentical matches are In sum, onomatopoeia is an important con- less likely to be loan words than identical sideration in proposals of distant genetic rela- agreements. Even if this were true, the elimina- tionship, one not properly attended to by WB tion of loans at the expense of increased chance 1981 and BW 1979. is hardly a bargain. Of course, it is not true; 4. Semantic crzteria. WB 1981 also do not loans need not match their donors semantically believe our requirement of semantic identity to for several reasons. They can undergo semantic be motivated, objecting to an example in our shifts after their borrowing just as native items, list of semantic nonidentity in their proposed or they may be adopted with a different mean- cognates, namely (3) proto-Mayan horsef7y, ing from their donor. For example, some form proto-Zoqueanf7y. We fully admit that seman- of Spanish castellano"castilian" is widely bor- tic change is a fact of linguistic life, but any rowed in Mesoamerican languages with the necessary and otherwise unmotivated assump- meaning chicken or bread, that is, things tion of semantic shift in proposed relationships brought to the New World from Spain (cf. Co- for languages not known to be related greatly painala Zoque kahsti chicken, Texistepec increases the possibility of chance as the ex- Popoluca [Zoque] ka:sda:n bread, Catchiquel planation of any perceived phonological kaslan chicken.,Pipil tihlan chicken, etc.; cf. similarity. The horseJ7y/J7ycase, while plausi- English chief and chef, both from French chef ble, becomes suspicious as a matter of principle head; Mexican Spanish escuincle little boy [pe- because of the necessity to assume semantic jorative] from Nahuatl i?kWin-tli dog; Chi- shift. WB picked on the least offensive example quimulilla Xinca Paci:miforelgner, devil from that falls under this principle, but their other Cakchiquel Pacin man). cases, contrary to their very misleading assertion The semantic identity requirement is a strict (WB 1981:908), are much more divergent than criterion of etymological research in well-estab- fly/horsef7y, to wit: (BW 1979) (4) proto-Mayan lished families, and should in no way be relaxed hard/proto-Zoquean grinding stone; (10) proto- in cases of distant genetic proposals (see God- Mayan to eat hard things (chew)/ proto- dard 1975). Zoquean to be full; (6) proto-Mayan uncle 5. Widespreadforms. We do not take at all (parent's sibling) (?)/proto-Zoquean con- kindly to WB's (1981:908) caricature of our suegro/a; (9) proto-Mayan bitter/proto- reservations concerning widespread forrns, Zoquean unrzpefruzt; (16) proto-Mayan to step called Pan-Americanisms by some, for such on, to stand on/proto-Zoqueanfoot; (21) proto- reservation is a standard criterion of distant 366 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [85, 1983] genetic research in the Americans (Campbell (stone), Miwok ce: ? (stone), Huave kow (grznd- 1973). We in no way appealed to or necessarily zng stone), Proto-Huave *kae (stone), Proto- believe in the hypothesis attributed to us of "a Athapasakan *+e (stone), Cuna akkwa (stone), gigantic Proto-Amerind phylum" (WB 1981: Tanoan ku (stone), Jicaque khok (to grznd on 908), rather we made reference to the legitimate stone), Kashaya -hkol (to gr2nd), etc. (See also practice in the investigation of remote relation- their [4] BW 1979, which involves the same ships in the Americas of avoiding widespread etymon.) (10) proto-Mayan *k'ustto eat hard forms. It is generally recognized that certain th2ngs/proto-Zoquean *ku?s to eat to satiation: forms recur with similar sound and meaning in Tarascan kaffa (to bite), Chitimacha k'ust (to very many American Indian languages (cf. eat), Yana k'aitsik'i(to eat), Bodega Miwok kus Swadesh 1954). Acknowledgment of the wide- (-kati) (to eat), Mutsun kase (to eat), Kutenai spread forms presupposes no particular ex- qas (to eat), Tekelma kis(-li), (to eat), Caddoan planation; while some may feel that these sup- kat:(to eat), Washo kithi (to bzte), Proto-Huave port some far-flung genetic connection (cf. *gus (to bzte), Chibeha kusi (to eat), Chocoxas Swadesh 1954; 1967; Greenberg 1960; etc.), it is (to bate), etc. (25) proto-Mayan *q'ab'/proto- possible that some widely shared similarities Zoquean *ki? hand: Lokono akabo, Dominica may be due to onomatopoeia, sound symbolism, ukabu, Guajiro ahappu, Lake Miwok k'upum perhaps diffusion, accident, or other undeter- (fznger), Sahaptin q'mkas, Mapuche kw=, mined factors. Recognition of their existence Mataco kwe, Nisenan k'a(:) (actzon with hand), need presuppose no genetic hypothesis, but does Kutenai ge:i, Proto-Zapotecan *ka?yu, Proto- necessarilyimply difficulties for as yet unproven Miwok *Rek'u, Huave -kwal, etc . (36) proto- proposals of distant relationship, since com- Mayan *saq whzte/MIX vin-sa:Pk lzght eyes, pared widespread forms do little to support a ZOQ poka-saka egg white: (forrns cited mean suspected closer relationship among some subset white) Totonac sa?kaka, Cacaopera saxu, Len- of languages than among other languages also ca soko, Chipaya sqo (white substance on containing these forms. ground), Wintu sikkuin, Yokuts sachau, cakun, In this vein, WB 1981 object to our wide- Yunga siku, cuk (light colored), Winnebago spread example of Tarascan hka (-hta-kua) ska, Nuhuatl (i)sta:k, etc. (23) proto-Mayan thigh, Jicaque tek foot, tik' knee, Aymara taki *qul tree trunk/proto-Zoquean *kuy tree: foot, Quechua caki foot, Chumash stuko knee, (forms cited mean tree) Proto-Uto-Aztecan etc., considering the similarities "vague and un- *kuy+, Chibeha kuye, kie, Guatuso kwey-ak convincing" as "an attractive cognate set" (p. (fzrewood), kai (tree), Alsea ckwa?k', Nahuatl 908). We did not claim cognacy for these forms; kWawi-, Karankawa akWini, Totonac kiwi?, our only claim is that there is a widespread form Paez eki (firewood), Cayapa ci, Shipibo hiwi, (and many other representativelanguages could etc. have been added to the list) meaning foot or These few examples should make it clear that something similar which begins with a t or close- the widespread similarities in other American ly similar sound (?/c/s) and has something close Indian language make certain of BW's 1979 to k as the second consonant. The phonological proposed cognates less reliable and that and semantic matches are certainly close avoidance of such forms in proposed distant enough to call into question their (16), the ex- relationships is a reasonable requirement. ample that this widespread form is all about, 6. Dzstributzonal conszderations. WB 1981 with their Mayan (noncognate) forms tik', tek'-, seem to agree that reconstructions based on tak'- ranging over meanings of to step on, to cognates from a single language (or with a very stand up, to extend legs compared only with limited distribution in a family's subgroups) is Totontepec Mixe tek foot. To give some not optimal, but neverthelessseem unmoved by substance to our claim that widespread forms the distribution problem. In the comparison of are sufficient to call into question certain of two families such as Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean BW's (1979) cognates, we compare the follow- it is the validly reconstructed vocabulary which ing with their data: (1) proto-Mayan *ka:? ensures the antiquity of an etymon within a grindzng stone/proto-Zoquean *ca: stone: family and hence its potential antiquity in even Quechua qaqa (stone), Proto-Pomoan *qhahka more remote considerations. A form found in (flint), Sinsiga qhaka (stone), Tlingit tlqa but a single language or subgroup may, of (stone), Proto-Zapotecan *keya (stone), *ki?ce course, be just as old, but may also be a recent (grinding stone), Chibcha htka (stone), Arawak addition to the lexicon due to any of the means hagi (stone), Yana xaka xaka (flint), Lenca ke of lexical change (borrowing, affective forma- RESEARCH REPOR TS 367 tions, analogical reformulations, replacement, form in one language (or family) cannot be shift, etc.). This is by no means a trivial con- cognate to multiple forms in another, save the sideration. BW's 1979 position allows them to multiple forms are derived ultimately from a draw on the independent vocabularies of any of single original etymon. Thus, the total number the 30 and the several Mixe- of proposed cognate set must be reduced at least Zoquean languages for potential cognates. by the number of repeated etyrna, while the When legitimate protoforms are not compared, distinct phonological correspondencesbased on there normally will be a number of forms with such repetitions require sober reinspection, similar sound and meaning within the vocabu- speaking generously. laries of this many languages for any vocabulary 8. Sound correspondences. We take sharp of- item selected randomly (i.e., for which one may fense at WB's (1981:909) statement that we are wish to seek similar forms as potential cognates), indifferent to the importance of regular phono- increasing the possibility of accidental agree- logical correspondences. They have (either by ments radically. In fact, the number of acciden- design or ignorance) failed to understand our tal matchings expected is roughly proportional point. There is nothing surprising (as they sug- to the number of languages consulted (Justeson gest, p. 907) about our not discussing their pro- 1978). If evidence of a form's antiquity (normal- posed sound correspondences-it goes without ly shown by the widespread distribution of its saying, if we Elndvirtually all of their 62 propos- cognates among sister languages) is not re- ed cognate sets invalid on standard criteria for quired, then the chance factor becomes ex- distant genetic relationship, that we do not ac- tremely high. For this reason we cannot be too cept proposed correspondences based on those impressed with such forms as BW's (1979) (8), forms. Moreover, "surface" (or identical) cor- where an assumed proto-Mayan *k'e to gzve respondences do not necessarily imply a "weak" based only on Kekehi k'eh is compared to an case (p. 906). As seen above, loans may contain ostensible proto-Zoquean -ci? to gzve based sole- radically different sounds from their donors ly on ZOQ ci?, or with their (12) with assumed which can produce apparent but false cor- proto-Mayan *k'osshrzmp based on only Kekchi respondences. On the other hand, identicalness and Pokomchi k'ost(where Pokomchi is known in true correspondences depends on many fac- to be replete with Kekehi loans), which they tors. For example, certain types of languages compare to a postulated proto-Zoquean *ko:?s may change very little over time. For instance, shrimp based solely on Totontepec Mixe languages with few (marked) consonants and ka:Psm. Several other BW 1979 forms are just as vowels, open syllables, and syllable-timed stress (un)impressive as these. may remain stable; Pipil (E1Salvador) has been When WB (1981:909) object to including separated for over 1, 000 years from other Motozintlec puku:h as cognate with Tzeltal, varieties of Nahuatl but has virtually identical Tzotzil, and Tojolabal putuh, they are off the sound correspondences, while modern English track. Motozintlec puku:h is a straightforward with roughly the same time interval differs phonological cognate of the other forms; in this radically from Old English, having extensive context Proto-Mayan *k does not shift to c in changes in the vowel system, inventory of con- Tzeltal, Tzotzil, or Tojolabal. On the other sonants, consonant clusters, distribution of hand, given its semantics ('evil, devil') it could allophones, and so forth. The Mayan family is a be diffused. If so, why did BW 1979 use such an case in point; with a time depth approaching item, of limited distribution in Mayan, to try to that of the Indo-European languages of Europe, establish a relationship between Mayan and the Mayan correspondences are on the whole Mixe-Zoquean? identical or are the result of single natural and Obviously, then, matched forms in proposed recurrent changes-Proto-Mayan *p, *m, *n, distant genetic relationships which have estab- and *y are reflected unchanged and with iden- lished etymologies within their respective tical correspondences in all the Mayan families are preferable to unaffiliated forms. languages. English, even after its many 7. Repeated sets. WB 1981 admit to changes, reflects unchanged Proto-Indo-Euro- repeating the same etyma under different pro- pean *r, *l, *m, *n, *s, *w, and *y on the posed cognate sets, saying that what they do is whole. Therefore, persistent identical cor- reconstruct a broad semantic range, where respondences in truly related languages should repetition reflects the lesser certainty of seman- not be shunned, nor should excessive weight be tic as opposed to phonological reconstruction given nonsimilar correspondences, since loans (WB 1981:908-909). The point is that a single can exhibit them. AMERICAN 368 ANTHROPOLOGIST [85, 1983] On the contrary, it is apparently BW 1979 who show statement that most Mixean languages (but not little regard for correspondences. It is all) have CVC forms correspondingto Zoquean distressing that BW 1979 present proposed CVCV roots. Since most frequently BW 1979 proto-Zoquean reconstructions which often dif- fer reconstruct *CVC in spite of the forms in their markedly from the forms upon which the own cognate sets which point to *CVCV, reconstruction is based without stating how in- a dividual canonical form they approve of (WB 1981:909), Mixe-Zoquean languages reflect their we are left with the unavoidable impressionthat reconstruction nor how sounds of these their prediliction for *CVC is dictated by languages correspond among themselves. They their wish to make Mixe-Zoqueanforms appear claim to follow Wonderly (1949) (of which more they similar to the typically CVC forms of unkindly suppose us to be unaware), but call Mayan. on For example, in (43) proto-Zoquean is his authority in only three instances, once given a (in monosyllabic *ci:k coati to make it parentheses) to indicate that a c/?' more similar contrast to their proto-Mayan *ci:k (actually a developed "in some contemporary Zoquean loan word lan- from Mixe-Zoquan), although their guages" (BW: 1979:37), not specifying Zoquean which; forms clearly reflect *?iku (SP once to mention the intervocalic cti:ku,TEX ciko, voicing of k as ZOQ ciku). Their other *CVC "secondary developments" "in some reconstructions Zoquean where their own evidence languages,"again not specifying clearly indicates which (p. 38); original *CVCV are: 2, 3, anda third time to say that 5, 6, 14, 17, 21, 32, Wonderly was "con- 36, 49, 50, 51, and 57. cerned with the internal relationships of Zo- BW 1979 do not offer proper queanlanguages" and that he "servedas sources reconstructions for of Proto-Mixe-Zoquean etyma. There are lexical items from several different lan- only about 60 different Proto-Mixe-Zoquean guagesand dialects thereof' (p. 47). Our com- mor- phemesin Wonderly's article, and only some plaint was that BW's 1979 proto-Zoquean of them are cited by BW 1979. The rest reconstructionsseem manipulated to create of the the Proto-Mixe-Zoquean(BW's pZ) appearanceof greater similarity to their proto- reconstructions offeredby BW seem to be constructed to Mayanforms. We had cited their (9) proto- suit their purposes of showing that Mayan Mayan*k'ah b2tter, bile/proto-Zoquean *cah and Mixe-Zoqueanare related. In a more sour,bgtter, where the proto-Zoquean charitable form is spirit,we might simply opine that basedsolely on Sayula Popoluca caytim they do not unrape knowhow to reconstruct proper frutt.Setting aside for the moment that Proto-Mixe- the Zoqueanetyma from the attested assignedproto-Zoquean gloss "sour, reflexes. bitter" is These considerations should obviouslycreated to suggest greater make it clear similarity to wherethe charge of disregard theMayan gloss, we object to the for sound cor- reconstruction respondencesshould be laid. ofproto-Zoquean *h based on Sayula Popoluca WB 1981:908 find it y}particularly since *h is universally remarkable that we reflected as (Campbelland Kaufman 1980: h(and *y as y) in all Mixe-Zoquean 852) question languages in whythey discuss reflexes of their Wonderly's( 1949: 2, 5) treatment. proto-Mayan- Their other Zoqueanin branches of Mayan, examplewe mention was (12) but not directly proto-Zoquean inProto-Mayan and they *ko:?sshrimp based solely on say that they devoted Totontepec Mixe muchto these segments in ka:sm;again there is no indication in Proto-Mayan (p. either BW 908).Perhaps they intended 1979or Wonderly for why a: should readers to intuit reflect theProto-Mayan reflexes of their proto-Zoquean*o: rather than *i: (nor why the proto-Maya- m Zoqueanfrom their proposed cognate should not be in the parent language). We sets, are becausetheir discussion bypasses Proto-Mayan left with the not unreasonable impression that andgoes directly from their proto- the reason for their proto-Zoquean *o: in Maya- this Zoqueanto groupings of Mayan form is to make it appear more like their languages, for example:"Thus pMZ proto Maya - Zoquean proto-Mayan*k'os shrimp (also based on a *k hasbeen retained in South Mayan and singlelanguage, Kekchi). We repeat the BW has changedin Central Mayan and Zoquean" 1979proto-Zoquean examples where recon- (BW 1979:35);"The pMZ postvelar stop *q has structionsappear aimed at greater Mayan been similarity retainedonly in South Mayan languages. In without due regard for regular cor- Central respondencesor Mayan and Zoquean, where the reflexes: 2, 14, 18, 30, 33, 43, prevelarstop *k 50,51, 56, and 60. has become c (c in Zoquean), thepostvelar stop *q has become plain In this context of correspondences, k" (p. WB 36).We repeat; it is puzzling and (1981:909)totally miss the significance of our misleading thatproto-Maya-Zoquean reflexes in proto- RESEARCH REPORTS 369

Mayan are not discussed but are bypassed for because it is presumably based on the same in- discussion of their subgroups of Mayan. adequate methods. To conclude, we consider their position that BW 1981 conclude their response with "if a few sets fall short of complete convincing- asserted conEfidencethat "lessbiased judges" will ness, this does not negate the aggregate weight find that they "have constructed a convincing of the majority of sets" (WB 1981:907). Distant case for distant genetic relationship between genetic relationship is not like a turkey shoot; Mayan and Zoquean" (pp. 909-910). Let us one does not just throw out a barrage of forms, leave the matter, then, for competent judges to hoping that if some do not take perhaps others determine-our confidence is that such judges will. Sixty-two proposed cognate sets are few will not fail to find that it is only BW's 1979 enough to document their proposed correspon- evidence that is "constructed" through their dence sets, even if all were valid. But there are employment of misleading procedures and in- not 62 cognate sets, rather virtually all sets are adequate methods; that, in their treatment, the called seriously into question on the basis of Mayan-Zoquean hypothesis has fallen far short rather standard criteria which are employed for of demonstration, hardly even attaining a suffi- very good reasons in distant genetic research. cient level of plausibility to encourage further Thus we stand emphatically behind our reeval- research, and that their proposed Mesoameri- uation of their proposal-- it is not a few sets that can phylum cannot be taken seriously in the fall short, leaving a plausible aggregate behind; absence of evidence and in face of the proce- it is the aggregate which falls short, leaving no dures employed in their Mayan-Zoquean (BW

. . . . convmclng resldue. 1979), presumably also utilized in their Meso- In light of considerations presented in our american proposal. Nevertheless, we believe original response and here, we may legitimately that further research is to be encouraged on say that their rhetoric is misleading, not to men- potential Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean relation- tion unfair; it is not our ''filxedopinions" that ships, on the lines we urge here. are "revealed" (WB 1981:909), but rather We sincerely hope that our discussion may be worthwhile and essential standards of investiga- of some utility to others who will undertake the tion that are at issue. In fact we have nothing investigation of remote relationships. against investigation of remote relationships and in our writings have consistently encour- APPENDIX aged research on such proposals as Macro- Mayan (Mayan, Mixe-Zoquean, and Totona- Finnzsh and Mayan-Zoquean can), Jicaque-Tequistlatec, and others (see, for Accldental Match7ngs example, Campbell and Kaufman 1980:854- 855). Following common practice (see Bender We do not necessarily disbelieve that a 1969), we assume that CVC (C = consonante, reasonable genetic connection beten Mayan and V = vowel) matchings are interestingly similar Mixe-Zoquean exists; however, we do object to if the compared consonants both match (are BW's 1979 methodology. The job of trying to identical or differ by only one phonological test this hypothesis will simply have to be done feature which could be derived by natural, well- properly, and if the result seems convincing, known, commonly recurringsound changes), or then it will be time to publish such a study. if the first C and V match identically and the Our only fixed opinion has been that the second C is not implausibly different. Finnish evidence offered in support of distant genetic derivational suffixes irrelevant to the root are proposals should attain a level of plausibility presented in parentheses. Finnish forms are following valid methods. Since the evidence in cited in linguistic rather than standard Finnish BW 1979 for their Mayan-Zoquean proposal is orthography, except that Finnish />e/ is given ruefully wanting when weighed against reason- as orthographic a and the geminate or long con- able standards of investigation, we do not em- sonants are written doubled (e.g. kk). The /y/ brace their hypothesis and we also advise others of our examples corresponds to orthographicj, against it. As the methods in BW 1979 have our /u/ to y, and our vowel length in F: to VS proven deeply inadequate, we can only reiterate (e.g., /a:/ x aa). our conclusion that the WB 1978 proposed Since Finnish has no affricates, its s is com- Mesoamerican phylum, of which their Mayan- pared with ? and c as well as to s and stof the Zoquean is a part and for which no evidence has BW data. Since Finnish has no velar fricative yet been presented, must not be taken seriously, (/x/), its k and h (historically related to k in 370 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [85, 1983] some forms) are both compared to x and to h. (25) pM *q'ab', pZ *ki? hand; Fi. kapa(la) Given that Finnish has only one velar (k) as op- paw, ka:pi- to paw, ka:ppa:- to grab, capture, posed to the four back stops of Mayan (k, k', q, kammen palm, kate- hand. '), we compare both Finnish k and h to these (26) pMZ *qac to break, to cut, to chop; Fi. four sounds of BW 1979. Finnish v is related katkaise- to break, to cut off. historically to w, to which we compare it. Since (27) pMZ *q'on to carry; Fi. kanta- to carry, Mixe-Zoquean has no I or r, Finnish I and r (as kulye(-tta-) to carry, to convey. well as n) are compared to Mixe-Zoquean n as (28) pMZ *q'et to break (cf. 26); Fi. katkaise- the nearest equivalents. Since Mayan and Mixe- to break off, katketa to break. Zoquean typically lack consonant clusters, we (29) pM *q'ic to tear, pZ *ki:?c to tear; Fi. frequently compare the n, 1, r, and s of Finnish kaista strzp, karsi- to lop off clusters (occurring only medially) to zero. (30) pMZ *q'op to break into pieces; Fi. kap- We emphasize that these Finnish forms are pa(le) piece (cf. poikki broken) compared with BW's 1979 proposed cognates, (31) pMZ *qut/*kut on all fours/kneel/ not to our own reconstructions of Mayan or crouched down; Fi. kukistu- to crouch, kukussa Mixe-Zoquean forms. BW's 1979 abbreviations squatting. are: pZ = proto-Zoquean (our Proto-Mixe- (32) pM *q'a:q'fire, pZ *kak to toast corn; Zoquean), pM = proto-Mayan, and pMZ = Fi. kokkofire, keka(le) firebrand (cf. kei[-tta-] proto-Maya-Zoquean.We abbreviate Finnish as to cook). Fi. Following BW's 1979 numbers, we Emd the (33) pM *qam teeth, Fi. hammas tooth. following chance similarities: (35) pMZ *xi:q' inhale/choke/whooping (1) pMZ *ka: stone, Fi. kallio rock (cf. Fi. cough (drown, breathe with difficulty); Fi. ki:n stone). hukku- to drown, huisku- to puff, huokaise- to (2) pMZ *ka:n snake, Fi. ka:rme. stgh. (3) pM *kac horsefly, pZ *cacJ7y; Fi. saske- (36) pMZ *saq white, Fi . selkea light, bright, mosquito (cf. (karpa-JZy). clear. (4) pM *kaw hard, Fi. kova. (37) pMZ *oqo woman, female (cf. their (5) pMZ *k'am to carry, take, accept; Fi. Tapachultec aka grandmother); Fi. akka old kanta- to carry, take. women. (6) pM *(i-) ka:n parent's sibling, pZ *ca:n (38) pMZ *a:q'a mouth, edge, pZ *a:ka consuegro; Fi. kammi godfather, kalu sister-in- mouth edge; Fi . aukko mouth, opening. law. (39) pMZ *hoq' hook, Fi. koukku, haka. (9) pMZ *k'ah sour, bitter, bile; Fi. katkera, (40) pMZ *muq' strong, strength {Jorce, karvas bitter. large, hard); Fi. muhkea imposing, impressive, (13) pMZ *uk' to drink, Fi. yuo to drink, mokoma without equal, by all means (in uhku to flow. negative unheard o@. (14) pMZ *yuk' above, up, high (toward); Fi. (41) pMZ *waq' to divide, separate (break, yurkka steep. split, crack, to part); Fi. vakoturrow, vikaJlaw. (15) pMZ *tuk one, Fi. tuiki altogether, (43) pZ *ci:k coati (the BW Mayan forms are "uKte one (cf. Pokomam -utka-lem by oneself). borrowed from Mixe-Zoquean); Fi. sika pig ( 16) pMZ *tek' to step on, to stand on (note that coati terms shifted to pig in several (foot); Fi. tikka:-t step(s). Mesoamerican languages after the Conquest). (17) pMZ *muk' to shorten (body) by crouch- (45) pMZ *yaq' to give, to place; Fi. yake- to ing or squatting, pM *muk' squat, pZ *muk to give out, to share. crouch, to shorten; Fi. kutka- bent, curved, (46) pM *tuq'/*tuk' palm (tree), pZ *to?k maka:- to lie (down). woven mat; Fi. tuohi birch bark (from which (19) pMZ *nuk' to jozn together, to stzck; Fi. mats, woven shoes, knapsacks, etc., were made nauha band, cord, string (cf. ki:nni joined, in aboriginal Finnish culture). stuck, to stick). (47) pMZ *poq cruelty, evtlness, witcheraft (20) pMZ *mok to tie up, to knot; Fi. (badness, pain, devil); Fi. paha bad, evil, mohka(le) lump, block, clump, knot, mutka- paholainen d evil, pakana heathen, perke(le) knot(ted), complicated. devil. (22) pMZ *q'ep to cut in half (break, divide); (48) pMZ *o:q foot, leg; Fi. yalkafoot, oksa Fi. kappa(le) piece, keppi stick, broken limb. limb. (23) pM *qul tree trunk, Fi. kori trunk, body, (49) pMZ *no:q' to snore, to make a loud korte- stem. noise; Fi. nukku- to sleep, noko(-set); snooze. RESEARCH REPOR TS 371

(51) *tiq' to enter, to pierce; Fi. tikari long Aschmann, Herman Pedro knzfe, tunke- to pzerce, to penetrate. 1973 Diccionario Totonaco de Papantla, (52) pMZ *teq house, Fi. takka hearth (cf. Veracruz. Serie de Vocabularios y Diccion- koti house). arios Indigenas "Mariano Silva y Aceves," (53) pM *xoq' to dzg, pZ *hok to work the No. 16. Mexico: Instituto Linguistico de ground with stick or hoe; Fi. kuokki- to hoe, Verano. hakku pickaxe. Bender, Marvin L. (54) pMZ *paq to fold, Fi. paka:- to wrap up, 1969 Chance CVC Correspondencesin Un- pakka roll. related Languages. Language 45:519- 531. (55) (See 35.) Brown, Cecil H., and Stanley R. Witkowski (56) pMZ *piq to touch with fingers, Fi. 1979 Aspects of the Phonological History of peukku fingers, peukalo thumb. Mayan-Zoquean. International Journal of (57) pM *c'oq eal, to make someone ill; Fi. American Linguistics 45:34-47. sotkea confused, sokea blind, surkea miserable, Callaghan, Catherine A., and Wick R. Miller sunhEagloomy, dreary (person). 1962 Swadesh's Macro-Mixtecan hypothesis (58) pMZ *suq' to smell, Fi . tuoksu-. and English. SouthwesternJournal of An- (59) pMZ *b'iq' llttle, Fi. pikku 12ttle,small. thropology 18:278-285. (60)pMZ *xoq' to snore, Fi. kuorsu- to snore, Campbell, Lyle korsku- to snort, huoka(us) breathing, breathe. 1973 Distant Genetic Relationship and the (61)pMZ *muq' to root up, to wind up; Fi. Maya-Chipaya Hypothesis. Anthropolog- mutka(ise-) windzng. ical Linguistics 15(3):113-135. Other less persuasive similarities, which we 1975 Constraints on Sound Change. In The only mention but do not take too seriously, are Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics the following: 2. K. H. Dahlstedt, ed. pp. 388-406. (7)pM *ki:s fart (excrement, to defecate, Stockholm: Almqvist and Welisell Inter- vulva, trash); Fi. ku:si urine. national. (8) pM *k'e to give, Fi. kehi(-tta-) to Campbell, Lyle, and Terrence Kaufman generate. 1976 A Linguistic Look at the . (10) pZ *ku?s to eat to satiation, Fi. American Antiquity 41:80-89. kullas(tu-) . 1980 On Mesoamerican Linguistics. Ameri- (12) pMZ *k'o:s shrimp, Fi. katka(-rapu) (the can Anthropologist 82:850-857 vowel match may be of little signiElcance,since Goddard, Ives only Totontepec Mixe ka:?sm supports the pZ 1975 Algonquian, Wiyot, and Yurok: Prov- *ko:?s with no indication given of how Mixe a: ing a Distant Genetic Relationship. In reflects *o:). Linguistics and Anthropology: In Honor of (18)pMZ *so:k nest, Fi. sulka feather. C. F. Voegelin. M. Dale Kinkade, Kenneth (21) pMZ *sak' shellfish, Fi. simpukka shell, L. Hale, and Oswald Werner, eds. pp. clam (note others reconstruct pZ *soke shell, 249-262. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. based on soke in all Zoquean languages). Greenberg, Joseph H. (24) pMZ *q'os bent, curved, hunchbacked; 1960 The General Classification of Central Fi. koukis(tu-) to bend, to be crooked, and South American languages. In Men ku:kis(tu-) to bend over, squat, crouch. and Cultures: Selected Papers of the 5th (42) pMZ *tuq clouds, Fi. tuisku International Congress of Anthropological (snow)storm. and Ethnological Sciences, September (44) pZ *ok dog, Fi. koira dog, vuohi goat 1956, Philadelphia. F. C. Wallace, ed. pp. (from *o:hi) . 791-794. Philadelhia: University of Penn- sylvania Press. Itkonen, Erkki 1966 Suomen Suvun Esihistoria. In Suoma- REFERENCESCITED lais-Ugrilaisen Kielen-ja Historian-Tut- kimuksen Alalta. pp. 5-47. Tieto-Lipas 20. Helsinki: Suomlaisen KirjallisuudenSeura. Anttila, Raimo Justeson, John S. 1972 An Introduction to Historical and 1978 Mayan Scribal Practice in the Classic Comparative Linguistics. New York: Period: A Test Case of an ExplanatoryAp- Macmillan. proach to the Study of Writing Systems. 372 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [85, 1983]

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Revised Lexicostatistical University. Classification of Koivulehto, Jorma Sallshan Languages 1 980 Itamerensuomalais-germaaniset Kostetukset. Paper prepared for the Sym- posium: Suomen Vaeston Esihistorialliset DAVID B. KRONENFELD Juuret, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Department of Anthropology Finland. Unlversityof Callfornza Rzverside, CA 92521 Nichols, Johanna 1971 Diminutive Consonant Symbolism in LYNN L. THOMAS Western North America. Language 47: Department of A nthropology 826-848. Pomona College Reid, Aileen A., and Ruth G. Bishop Claremont, CA 91711 1974 Diccionario Totonaco de Xicotepec de Juarez, Puebla. Serie de Vocabularios y Diccionarios Indigenas "Mariano Silva y We are concerned here with the problem of Aceves, " No. 17. Mexico: Instituto subgrouping of language families, that is, the Linguistico de Verano. problem of determining the precise interrela- Stairs, Kreger, Glenn Albert, and Emily tions of a set of languages that are already Florence Scharfe de Stairs known to be genetically related to one another. 1981 Diccionario Huave de San Mateo del The similarity data that we are using consist of Mar. Serie de Vocabularios y Diccionarios percentages of shared basic vocabulary (calcu- Indigenas "Mariano Silva y Aceves," No. lated by Swadesh). Two languages can share an 24. Mexico: Instituto Linguistico de item of vocabulary, (1) by both inheriting it Verano. from a common ancestor (wherever that ances- it from); (2) by one borrowingit from the Swadesh, Morris tor got borrowing it from some third 1954 Perspectives and Problems of Amer- other, or both by means of some sort of universal indian Comparative Linguistics. Word 10: source; (3) of sound symbolism; or (4) by chance. 306-332. process In this paper we are assuming that the effects of 1967 Lexicostatistic Classification. In Lin- (3) and (4) are small enough to ignore (except as guistics. Norman A. McQuown, ed. pp. residue). We are also assuming that at any 79-115. Handbook of Middle American a depth a language has one and only Indians, Vol. 5. Robert Wauchope, gen. given time parent, and thus that the family tree of any ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. one group of languages will map from a unique Witkowski, Stanley R., and Cecil H. Brown beginner (protolanguage) through a series of 1978 Mesoamerican: A Proposed Language one-to-many nodes (other later protolanguages) Phylum. American Anthropologist 80: to the set of existing languages. We make this 942-944. assumption of a taxonomic kind of structure not 1981 Mesoamerican Historical Linguistics because we know it to be incontrovertible, but and Distant Genetic Relationship. Ameri- (1) because in order to select an appropriate can Anthropologist 83:905-911. kind of clustering technique we have to know Wonderly, William L. what kinds of clusters we are looking for, and 1949 Some Zoquean Phonemic and Mor- (2) because this is the kind of structure com- phophonemic Correspondences. Inter- monly posited in historical linguistics. national Journal of American Linguistics Morris Swadesh presented in 1950 a classifi- 15:1-11. cation of Salishan languages based on percent- 1953 Sobre la Propuesta Filiacion Linguis- age similarities in "selected basic vocabulary"of tica de la Familia Totonaca con las 30 languages and dialects of the family. Familias Zoqueana y Mayense. In Swadesh was well aware of problems with the Huastecos, Totonacos y sus Vecinos. Ig- original data (1950:157; Dyen 1962:156, n. 7!. nacio Bernal and Davalos Hurtado, eds. He viewed his method and results as approxima- pp. 105-113. Revista Mexicana de Estudios tions and not as substitutes for detailed recon- Antropologicos 13: 105 - 113. Mexico: struction. (Swadesh also pursued the goal of us- Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia. ing the same data set to date language diverg-

View publication stats