Papers from the 5Th International Co Nference on H Istoricallinguis Tics

AMSTERDAM STUDIES Ir.,-THE THEOR.Y AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE

CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTTC THEORY

Volume21

Papers from the 5th International Co nference on H istoricalLinguis tics

Edited by,A"ndersAhlqvist Offprint

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY THE MYSTERY OF THE VANISHED LAURENTIANS

MARIANNE MITHUN

When Jacques Cartier first sailed into the Bay ofGasp6 in 1534' he encountered a large fishing party. The group had come from Stada- cona, a settlement up the Saint Lawrence River where Quebec City now stands. Cartier did not remain long in the area,but when he left for France, he took two Stadaconancaptives with him. His ad- ventures in the New World are documented in an account of this first voyage. He retumed the following summer, along with his captives, who now spoke some French. This time he remainedlonger, spendingmost of the winter near Stadacona,with a briefexcursion to the settlement of Hochelaga,onpresent Montreal Island"The account of this secondvoyage is also rich with descriptionsof the area and its inhabitants. In 1536, Cartier again set sail for France, this time with ten captives,most from around the areaof Stadacona,although one girl came from a town further upriver, Achelacy- Car' tier undertook a third voyagein 1541, but little mention is made of the Laurentian inhabitants in the account ofthis voyage,norin the journal of Roberval,who attempted to found a colony there several years later. In fact,little more was everto be known of thesepeople at all. When Champlain arrived in the region in 1603, they had com- pletely vanished, Who were thesepeople, and what becameof them?r Some traces, lurk in archaeologicalsites uncovered in the vicinity of Hochelaga. These upper Saint Lawrence sites are clearly Iroquoian in charac- ter, but no lower sites have yet been uncovered which could be identified as Stadaconan.Some ethnographic clues can be gleaned from Cartier's descriptions of the people and their way of life. Al- though he spent only one day at Hochelaga,his description of that settlement is quite detailed. Itseemstohavebeenatypical,palisaded Iroquian village, consisting of a large number of longhousessur- r For an excellent critica.l discussion of Previous work directed at this question seeTrigger 1972. THE VANISHED LAURENTIANS 231 rounded by extensivecornfields. Cartier's description ofStadacona is sparser.The Stadaconansappear to have resembledAlgonquian speakinggroups in the areamore than the Hochelagans,with a rela- tively greater dependence on fishing, although this may simply have been due to the harsherclimate which preventedtotal reliance on agriculture. A third set of clues to the identity of the Lauren- tians lies in the words from their languagewhich accompanythe accounts of the voyages.

1. The Linguistic Traces Appended to the account of Cartier's first voyageis a list of over fifty words of the 'Langage de la terre nouvellement descouverte nomme la Nouvelle France'.r All of these are drawn from the text of the account. Appended to the account of the second voyage is another list, partially overlapping with the first, of the 'Langaige des pays et royaumes de Hochelagaet Canada,aultrement dicte la Nouvelle France'.z Together, the two accounts yield a little over two hundred words of the mystery language,probably the first North American languageto be recorded. Circumstancessurrounding the transcription of these words are somewhat mysterious. First, it is not clear exactly whoselanguage the vocabulariesrepresent. Cartier spent only one day at Hochel- aga,but a number of words in the secondaccount occur in his description of that settlement. The words couldhave been supplied by Hochelagans,by Stadaconan guides, or later by the captives in France. The general quality of the work suggeststhat all of the words accompanying the accounts were transcribed at leisure by someone more philologically inclined than a ship caPtain. If the vocabularies aere transcribed in France. the issue is not settled. The captivesseized during the secondvoyage were not all from the village of Stadacona,They came from severalsurrounding villages, If their languagesdiffered, the vocabularies could represent any one of the settlements.or a mixture. Furthermore, without knowing when and where the vocabularres were recorded, we cannot accurately assessthe degreeofbilingua- lism of the participants nor the context ofthe recording. In several cases,this hampers critical evaluation of the strength of the evi dence.Consider a term for 'salmon' in the secondaccount. r Frorn Ramusio asprinted in Hoffman 1961. 2 Manuscript A. (See Cartier,1636 in Index of Soutces). 232 MARIANNE MITHUN l) L2. ondaccon (A, B, C, BR)/ L2. oudacon (Hak, Th) 'r'ng saul- mon'r This word resemblesno modem word for any kind of fish in any of the lroquoian or Algonquian languagesin the area.It doesresemble words in severalIroquian languagesfor a kettle, however. M. q:ta(k) Oe.q:tak Su.owntack 'kettle'2

r Each Laurentian term will be given with a key to its source. Ll. refers to words from the first account, L2 to words from thesecond. Sourcesate abbre- viated as follows. A, B, and C refer to manuscriPts 5653, 5589, and 5644 res- pectively io the Bibliothique Nationale in Paris' BR refers to the Brefrecit of 1545, Hak to Hakluyt's printed v€rsion of 1600 (seeunder Burrage in index), Th to Thevet's version in Le Grand Inslrhile (taken flom Hoffman 1961), R to Ramusio's translation from the Italian in 1565, and M to the Moleau manuscript, abo taken from Hoffman 1961. For fullcr citations of these sources consult Cartier in the Index of Sources. 2 The sorrrces for th€ other hoquoian languageecited are the following. The Huron is from Sagard's Dictionnaire de la langue huronne (HS), from Chau- mo[ot's Grammar of the Huron Language (HCh), and flom Potiel's manuscripts (HP). The Mohawk is from my notes from Leatrice Beauvais, Mary Cross, Annette Jacobs, Connie Jacobs, CeorginaJacobs, VemaJacobs, Dolo- thy Lazor€, Margaret MacDonald, and Mary MacDonald (M). The Susquehan- nock or Andaste ir from campanius (1696: f55-f66) (Su) and is cited in hi! tmnscription. The Oneida (Oe)is ftom my notes from DickChrisjohn' Mer- cy Doxtador, and Georgina Nicholas. The Onondaga is from Sh€a's seven- te€nth century dictionary (OoS), from Zeisb€rger's eighteenth century dictionary (OoZ), from Hanni woodbury (oo), and from my notes from Reginald Henry and Audrey Shenandoa (Oo). The Cayuga (C) is frcm my notes from Jim Skye and R€ginald HeEy. Th€ Seneca (S) is principally from Chafe'6 dictionary with some forms from my notes from Alberta Austin, Lovina Huff, Earbara Lee, and Myrtle Peterson. The Tuscalola (T) is from my notes from Elton Creene and Robert Mt. Pleasant. Th€ Nottoway is from Wood's noter (NW) and Trezvant's notes (NT), both in their odginal tmnscliPtions. The Cherokee (Ch) is taken from Feeling's dictionary. Fulld citations can be found in the list oJreferedces. In all of the modern Iroquoian languages,voicing is not distinctive, so it is not marked in transcdption. Obstruents are voiced before vowels and reson_ ants, esscntially. Nasalization is shownby acommaunder the vowel' s =[q y= [i]in Mohawk and Oneida, [6] in Tuscarora q = [a] or [5] THE VANISHED LAURENTIANS 232

Words which look suspiciously like this term appearelsewhere rn both of Cartier's accountsmeaning'earthen dish'' L1. undaco (R)/ L2. undaccon (C) 'vngpot de terre' This appearsto Ie a caseof understandablesemantic confusion, in The a situaiion wher. someonewas gesturingtoward fish in apot' the extent to which such interpretation is justified dependsuPon I languageskills of those involved-

u = [[] : Voic.lessness is indicated by underscoling in Cayuga' 4 [a]' 8 was wed by the French missionaries fol w and q . I The degreeofcreativity ofinterpretation evokcdby the translations covers a wide ranle. Some slight adjustments are easily admitted, as the form ofthe verb below. L2. quedaqu6 (A, B, C, BR,Ilak, Th)'cheminez' ('walk along') (command) M' kt6khe' 'I am running' Oe. ktiikhe' 'I am running' Oo. kt6khe' 'I am running'S. ktakhe"I am running' (k-= first Person subjective plonoun'I') Others are to bc anticipated as the confusion ofquestions and answe$' L2. canada undagneny (A, B, C)/ L2. canada undagneuv (BR,IIak,Th) 'D'on vmez-vous?' ('Whence come you?') M. kanitakq nqtay6kcne' 'we two came from town' Oe. kanatd:ke nqtaydkene' 'we two came from town' Oo. kanatak6:wd'nqtayikne"we two came from town' c. kanatakq: nqtd- two came khne:' 'we two came from town' S. kangtak6: ngtiyakhne:' 'we from town' (*kanii:ta': 'town') Others must b€ mole tentative. Words appear for 'olives' and 'figs" foods which the Laurentians certainly were not consuming at home' Some possibili- ties suggestthemselves. L2. honocohonda (A, B, C, BR) 'des ollyves' ('olives') HS acointa'pois'M' ondkwa'Peas'C. onC:kwa'Peas' Olives could not have been a Laurentian staple. They could well resemble small roundbeans orpeas, howev€r, particularly to the inexperienced eye' Ll. asconda (n,tn17 t2' absonca (A, B, c, BR, rlak, Th)'figues' ('figs') Hch' out, roasted, orcrisPy' ,askont 'it is roasted'M. o'skil:ta' 'someihing dricd either from fire or the sun' Oe. o'sku,:ti: 'it is burned'OoZ. watescuntanha tt is 'bumed by the sun'C. watd'skq:t 'it is roasted, bumed' S' o'skg:tat scorchinghot" Any figs thai Laurentian sPeakersw€re likely to seewere probably dried,either on board ship or in Brittany. Finally, a f€w words leaveroom only for flights offantasy. One such term appearsin the first account. L1. aignetaze (R)/ aignetase(Th) 'laton' The French term lefers to a lype ofbronze. The Laurentian term look! very 234 MARIANNE MITHUN Another question raised by the possibility of transcription in France is the identity of the scribe. Severalpossibilities have been suggested,but none with any certainty. Without this information, we tannot know what dialect of French the scribesspoke' nor what spelling conventions he would be most likely to follow, sinceboth french phonology and orthography were undergoingconsiderable changeit the time, (Brunot; Gougenheimand Richard)' Finally, as Hoffman (1961) points out, we havethree manuscript versions of the first account and six of the second. It is not even clear whether any of these is the original, although someappear to be more reliable than others in general.The discrepanciesamong manuscripts do not constitute a significant problem for the most pan, since they involve scribal departureswhich should be antici pated in any case,such as the confusion ofu and n, or the substitu- iion of s for z, or y for i, insignificant variation in the French orthography of the period. In a few cases,however, they do involve diag- nostic sound shifts.

2. The Method ofDetection In 1869, the Abb6 Cuoq concluded correctly that the vocabularies were from an Iroquoian language,probably Mohawk, on the basis of resemblancesbetween a number of words on the lists and words in Mohawk, the Iroquoian languagewith which he wasmost familiar. Since that time, the vocabularieshave been identified va' riously asnearly all ofthe other Northern Iroquoianlanguages,principally on the basis of the samekind ofevidence: resemblancesbetween individual Laurentian words and their equivalentsin some

much like the combination of two Iroquoian roots, -'ny- 'finger'/'hand' and -tase' 'to 'encircle'or'go around',lhe nounroot -'ny- apPca$ elsewhetc in the vocabulary. L1., L2. aignoascon (R, Th, A, C, B, BR, Hak) 'les mains' HS. eingya'lcs doigts' M. a'ny6:nawt 'mitten' Oe. ahyi:nawy' 'mitt€n' Oo. ake'ny6:sk{: 'my bare hand'C. qhy6nhahfra' 'ring' S. ke'nya"my hand, my finger' The verb root incorporates the noun referring to the object encitcled adding epenthetic d between roots to brcak clustcr, as in Mohawk ka'nhyatitse' 'it goes around thc stick' (-'nhy- 'stick')'. A not implausible translation for thi! Laurentian t€rm is 'it encircles the finget'. The earliest brass uncovered in uP per Laurentian sites was probably from finger rings (James Wright, personal communication). Such tenous explanations must, of course, remain sheer spe_ culation. THEVANISHED LAURENTIANS 235 other language. The nature of the relationships among the Northem Iroquoian languagesweakens the reliability of brute summation of lexical si- milarity as an indicator of identity. Becausethey are fairly closely genetically related, all ofthe languagesshare recognizable cognates. Furthermore, becausethey havemaintained contact through trade and adoption, speakers have continually borrowed words from their neighbors. Finally, the number of lexical similarities found between languagesdepends not only on their degreeof relationship but also on the skill of the researcherand the quality of the resour- cesavailable. In the caseof Northem Iroquoian, the nature of the resources complicates comPaxisonsfurther. For the modem languages(Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga,Cayuga, Seneca, and Tusca- rora), we are fortunate to have the assistanceof speakerswho can searchtheir minds for near synonyms and homonyms, rather than being limited by the gapsand organization of dictionaries. At the same time, the languagesof these speakersare 450 years removed from the time of Cartier, A large number ofwords can be replaced during such a length of time. Our best sources of Huron, on the other hand, date from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, less than one hundred years after th€ transcriPtion of the Cartier material, The Huron data are closer in time to Laurentian, but limited by the interests of the missionary lexicographers.For all of these reasons, simple enumeration of resemblant lexical items alone cannot constitute a reliable method for identifying the Lau- rentlans. In order to determine the position of a languagewithin a family, two distinctions are necessary.First, borrowings must be separated from inherited features, This can be accomplished from a know- ledge of sound change.Second, among inherited features,joint re' tentions must be distinguishedfrom joint innovations. Sharedre- tentions between languagesare indicators only of common origin, and not common development,since languages can easilyretainthe same featuresindependently over thousandsofyears ofseparation. Only common innovation can be considered an indicator ofjoint development, since languages do not innovate certain features in the same way independently. There are simply too many possibili- ties, Determining the relationship of Laurentian to the other Nor- thern Iroquoian languages involves identifying all of the innovations chaxacteristic of each subbranch of the family and of each in' 236 MARIANNE MITHUN dividual language, then examining the Laurentian vocabularies to seewhich, if anY,theY share. The documented .Iroquoian ianguages are related essentially as follows. For convenience, the language or languagesrepresented in the vocabularies will be referred to as laurentian, although it is not clear whether this is one language or more, the language of Stada- cona, of Hochelaga,or more,

Proto-Itoquoian

Proto-Notthern-Iroquoian

Proto-Lakc-Itoquoiaa

TNHWS (Ch=Chcrokee, T=Tuscaros, N=Nottoway, H:Huron, W=Wyandot' S=Sc- ncca, C=Cayuga, Oo:Onoudaga, Su=Susquehanaock=Andaste, Oe=Oneida, M:Mohawk)

In what follows, evidence for classifying the vocabularies in cach subbranch and in each language within the subbranch will be sum. marized and evaluated.

3. The Evidence for Tuscarora-Nottoway Beaugrand-Champagne(1937) suggestedthat the Laurentian vo' cabularies represent an early state of Tuscarora. A number of items THE VANISHED LAURENTIANS 237 on Cartier's lists do resemble Tuscarora and Nottoway words' Where Tuscarora and Nottoway differ from the rest of the lroquoian languages in vocabulary, however, Laurentian fails to match. Severalphonological innovations characterizeTuscarora. One is a *alb, * counterclockwise shift in the vowel inventory (* o)u, e)e ...). Another is the nasalizationof +t before vowels.A third, shared *n by Tuscarora and Nottoway, is the denasalizationof before oral vowels.Laurentian did not shareany ofthese innovations. 2) L2. tigneny (A, B, C, BR, Hak)/L2. tignini (Th) 'deux' ('two') *tekhni: HS. teni HCh. tendi M. t6keni Oe. t6ken Su. tiggene Oo. tek(e)nih C. tekhni: S. tekhni: T. n#:kti: NW. dekanee NT. tekenee Since Laurentian fails to show the innovations which characterize Tuscarora and Nottoway, there is no basis for classifyingit with this subbranch of Northern Iroquoian.

4. The Evidencefor Huron In 1948, Percy Robinson hypothesized that the Laurentian vocabularies were Huron, after finding a number of words in Huron which resembledthose in Cartier's accounts. In 1959, Marius Bar- beau (Cp. Chafe 1962) published an ambituous list of resemblances among words in all of the modemNorthernlroquoianlanguagesand concluded, from the relative numbersofsharedwordshefound, that Laurentian was mainly Huron with some Mohawk mixed in. Al- though the Laurentian vocabulariesdo shareanumberoftermswith Huron, the evidenceforidentifyingthem asHuron issomewhat slim. *k Nearly all consonantsunderwent radical changein Huron: was spirantized (*k),/ (V)-(w) V), *t shifted to k before velarvowels and semivowels(*tlk/-(h) w) and waslost before k, *s waspalata- lized between h and any vowel, *n was denasalizedbefore oral vowels, *r waslost between h and y, +w ofpronominal prefixes was lost word initially and +y disappearedword initially before vowels and intervocalically. In each case'nearly all of the Laurentian data exhibit a failure to sharethe Huron innovations. 3) L2. quatgathoma (A, B, C, BR/) L2. guagathoma(Hak, Th) 're- gardez-moi' ('look at me') PNI *at-kahthw M. takwatkdhtho 'look at us' Oe. takwatkritho Oo. takwatkathwa C. takwitka- tho S, takw6tkatho T. ka0atk6thu 'look at me' HS. sacaquoy 'viensvoir' (*s-at-kahthwa) 238 MARIANNE MITHUN 4) L2. canada(A, B, C, BR, Ituk, Th) 'une ville'('town') PNI *-nat- M. kani:ta' Oe. kana:ti: Oo. kan6:ti:yq' C, karuitag'S. kanqtayq: T. uti'naky:w HS. andata Also in each case,however, one or two Laurentian words appearto exhibit the Huron innovation. These exceptions could be due to scribal error. *s is palatalized between h and a vowel more often than not, but this could easily be a natural independent develop- rnent. It could be argued that all of the Huron shifts examined occurred between 1536 and 1623, when Sagardcompiled his diction- aty. This is rendered highly unlikely, however, by the presencein Laurentian of a number of irretractable innovations which Huron still had not undergone a century later, Many of theseinnovations arecharacteristic of the Inner Iroquois languages.

5, The Evidencefor Inner Iroquois. A number of phonological innovations distinguish the Inner languagesfrom each other, particular\ in the areasof vowel color, laryngeals,and *r. Among the Inner Iroquois languages,Mohawk has been chosen the most often asthe identity ofthe Cartier vocabularies,probably becauseuntil recently Mohawk was the best known of them, The Eastern languages,Mohawk and Oneida,are characterizedby shifts of*e to and of *otor1. Laurentian doesnot showthese shifts. 5) L2. quejon (A, B, C)/L2. queion (Br' Hak, Th) 'poisson' ('fish') PNI *-itsyg *ka*itsyg kqtsyg *o*itsyg+'t+a' otsyg'ta' Oo. otsy{'ta' C. otsy6'ta: S. kqioh W. ygtsg T. k'itsy4 NW. kaintu NT kancheuM. K, tsyq' Oe. K, tsyg' The Eastern languagesare also characterizedby the replacementof laryngealswith falling tone and vowel lengthunder stress.(Vh)V:/ -RV (R:n, r, l, w, y), V')V:/-CV) Some Laurentian words clearly indicate the retention of the laryngeal, others are ambivalent, while still others show s for this, a letter commonly used in the French orthography of the period to representvowel length. Whe- ther the scribe was in fact using it for length, or rather for the spi- rantization ofh or areleasedglottal, cannot be determined. 6) L2. quahouachon (A, B)/L2. quahoachon (C)/L2. quahouas- con (BR, Hak)/ L2. quahonascon (Th) 'chair' ('flesh') *Lu* 'wihrg' Oo. o'w6hr' C. o'wiihgh S. o'wa:'T. u'wrihryh NW. oharagM. o'wi:ry' Oe. o'wri:lg' THE VANISHED LAURENTIANS 239 7) Ll. isnez(T, Th)/ L2. ysnay (A, B, C, BR)/ L2. ysmay (Hak, Th) 'le soleil' ('the sun') *hfhne T. hih*a' NW. aheetaNT. hiheteh Cayugais distinguishedby the behavior oflaryngeals in odd-num- bered syllables.Here, syllable-final laryngealsspread features left- ward over the syllable. The results are laryngealized(creaky) syllables in the caseof glottal stop, voicelesssyllables in the caseofh. The term for 'arrow' suggeststhat Laurentian did not sharethis. 8) Ll. cacta(R) hne fleche'('anarrow') PNI *ka-'t-a'Oe.Ka'tit- sla' 'quiver' S. ka'to:t 'standing Feather' (woman's name) C. k'at6'thra' 'quiver' Voicelesssyllables are more difficult to discern.Some woids might show them, others might not. Some are orthographically ambi guous. 9) Ll. casaomy (T, Th) 'navire' ('ship') PNI tka-hg:w'a' C. kriqwa' (where a is voiceless) M. kahqw€:ya' Oe. kahq:wi: Oo. kah(:wa'S. kagwg'T, uh!:wreh NT. ohhunwahk The s could indicate intervocalic h, suggestingthat metathesisdid not take place.Alternatively, the sequenceao following the s could suggestthat metathesisdr"d occur, yielding a diphthong which was long and partially voiced. An alternative explanation for the shapesof Laurentian reflexes of h is the loss of intervocalic h, a Senecainnovation. Although Laurentian often appearsto sharethis loss,many words contain intervocalic h. 10) L2. adayan (A, B)/ L2. odaian (C)/ L2. odazan(BR) | odazani (Hak, Th) 'chault' ('hot') PNI +yo'tarr'hq: S. o'taiE: HS ota- rixhein Hch. atarihen M. yo'tarihg Oe. yo'talihy Oo. o't{ihqh C. o'tiiihq: T. yu'nirfhrl: NW tariha l1) Ll. hontasco(R, Th)/ L2. ahontascon(A, B, C, BR)/ L2. *-ahght- abontascon (Hak, Th) 'les oreilles' ('ears') PNI HS ahontta HCh. ahonta M. ohrihta' Oe. ohrihta'Oo. ohOhta'C. oh6hta'T. uhihnrh S. kdghta' Either the scribewas erratic in recording intervocalic h, not surpris' ing for a Frenchman,or the vocabulary is inconsistent. Probably the single most dramatic characteristic distinguishing the Inner Iroquois languagesfrom each other is the development of *r. In Oneida, some dialects of Mohawk, someSusquehannock, and some old Onondaga,it appearsas l. In other Mohawk, Susque- hannock, and old Onondaga (as well as Tuscarora, Huron, and 24O MARTANNE MITHUN Wyandot), it appears as r. The Laurentian vocabularies contain nu- merous instancesof both r and I' 12) Ll. caracomy (R, Th)i L2. carraconny (A, B, C, BR, Hak' Th) *ka-hrahk-g:ni 'pain' ('bread') PNI HS' karakona 'biscuit' OoS. orakkSa'Pain' 13) L2. wadellon I' C)1 L2. madellon (Br, Hak, Th) 'neuf' ' 1e, ('nine') PNI *wa'trg' Oe. wlL:th4'Su' waderom OoS' 8aderom Oo. wa'tq:'HCh. entron W' e'trg' The d.ifferenceis neither conditioned by cont€xt nor by list, since both occur in identical environments and on both lists' In the Westernlanguages, *r causedand underwent more radical change.It conditionid vowel fronting in some,developed-into oth- *r er resonants,then disappeared'In Cayugaand Seneca, becamen before y, while in Onondaga'it disappearedin this context' Lauren- tian showsthe Onondagaloss. 14) L2. aggayo(A, B, Cy L2. agavo(BR)/ L2. agtva(Hak)lL2' ' *karyo:' agayo (Th) 'vng chian' ('a dog') PNI 'wild alilnal' O". t u,y";HS. ayot HP aio C. kanyo:'S' kanyo:'M' kriryo' Oe. krilyo' Su. abgarijwT. k6:rYu:' -*a *r. In Seneca, was fronted to e following In Onondaga,all *r *q)9, *o)e)' *r back vowels were fronted following (*a)r, The was subsequently lost. A number of Laurentian terms share the fronting. 15) L2. quahetan (A, B, C, Hak, Th)/ L2. quahetam (81..) 'vne flesche' ('anow') PNI *ka-hrii't-a' 'feather' Oo. oh#'ta' S' oa'ta' c. ohi'ta'w. yani'ta' Oe. kahb:tq' T' uhrii'nrh *r Note that others fail to share the fronting and loss, however, as 12), above. Although l5) and severalothers show Onondagafront- ing and loss, others show only the loss, resembling Senecaand Cayuga. *ka' i61 L2. .ottdn (A, B, C, BR, Hak, Th) 'le bovs' ('wood') PNI rgt-a' C. kigta' S. ka:gta'HCh. ,a'ronta M. karri:ta' Oe' kalg: tri: Oo. ka{:ta' *r To further complicate matters, the vowel fronting and loss was not to take placein Onondagauntil 1800.r

I Itr 1779, the Onondaga took tefuge from Sullivan's army, a Punitive force 6ent by Washington to burrl their village, among the Seneca and Cayuga at Buf- falo Creek. Shortly after 1800, molt began to retum home, but the interval *r provided sufficicnt time to borrow the vowel ftonting and loss of from thcir hosts. This borrowing is furth€r discussed in Mithun l9?9 and Woodbury 1981. THE VANISHED LAURENTIANS 24I 6. The Verdict Basedon SharedInnovation The searchfor shared innovations has yielded incompatible con- clusions. Different Laurentian words show different developments in identical contexts. Nearly all ofthe innovations which characterize the known Lake Iroquoian languages are present in some Lau- tentian terms, and conspicuouslyabsent from others. Such altema- tions are too extreme to be attdbutable to free variation within one individual. Cartier's lists must represent more than one lalguage. This is bome out by the discrepancybetween two renditions ofthe same word. one from the first list the other from the second.Both are derived from the root *-'kar-'dark'. 17) Ll. iagla (R, Th) 'nuyt' ('night') L2. angau (C) 'le soir' ('evening') HCh. de, aratie 'tonight' Hp. onna, aratie 'la nuit approche, il est tard' M, yo'krira/yo'ki{la 'evening' Oe. yo'ka- li:q'it is dark'Oo. wa'6'ka:k'it got dark' C. qy6'ka:' 'it will get dark'S. o'kg:qh'it hasbecome night' qy6'kre:h'tonight' The version from the first list resemblesOneida, with 1, while the version from the second resemblesmodem Onondagaand Cayuga in its loss.The identity of the languagesofthe vocabulariesremains an enigma, unless there is some way to segmentthem into mono- lingual chunks.

7. The Numbers The set of numbers contained in the secondlist provides such an opportunity. Scribesrecording new languagesgenerally do not re- quest number namesindividually or at random. One asksa sPeaker to count. The Laurentian numben probably all came from a single speakerand representa singlelanguage' The numbers are all clearly Iroquoian in origin. Although each Laurentian number is cognate to equivalents in other Iroquoian languages,no other languagehas the sameset as a whole with one €xception: Chaumonot's Huron. The Huron recorded in 1623 by Sagarddiffers from the Laurentian in the word for hine',HS.nech- on. Numbers are lesslikely to have competing synonyms in a lan- guagethar other terms. Doesthis mean that at least the Laurentian numbers are the Huron recorded by Chaumonot? In fact, they are not. None of the major phonological innovations which characterize the Huron of both Chaumonot and Sagardaxe present in the Laurentian numbers. Another discrepancy between Laurentian 242 MARIANNE MITHUN and Huron concems the numbers 'six' artd'seven',The Laurentian term for'six'is cognateto Huron 'seven',while'seven'is cognateto 'six', This could of coursebe scribal error, but it may be significant that the Cherokee cognate to the Laurentian 'six'means 'six'as well. It could be argued that all ofthe phonological innovations of Huron occurred between Cartier's departure in 1536 and Sagard's arrival in 1623. The tems for 'six' and 'eight' suggestotherwise, however. Both show the loss of *r. an innovation which had still not occurred in Huron a century later. The numbers thus cannot be ancestralto Huron, the only set they match. A final word indicates that at least part of the list came from an Iroquoial languagewhich was not ancestralto any we know ofto- duy. 18) L. esnogy'wampum' PNI *onko'rha'M, oneko:rha'Oe.oni- ko:lha'/o'niko:la' Su. ahghoora/ottchoorha Oo, otko'a' C, otko'a' S.otko'r' This word showstwo innovations which do not coexist in any other known Iroquian languages.It sharesthe lossof rr with thewestem languages(Cayuga, Seneca, and modem Onondaga)but it doeszot share their denasalizationof*n before k. Instead,it showsepenthe- sissimilar to Huron. which retained +r.

8. Conclusion The Laurentian vocabularies do not represent a single, unified language,but, rather, contain severaldifferent Iroquoian languages or dialects,at least one ofwhich wasnot ancestralto any ofthe other attested Iroquian languages.From the data contained in Cartier's accounts, as well as the vocabulariesthemselves, it is impossibleto determine whether the languageof Hochelagawas the sameas one of these elements.The words cited with the description ofthat settlement are quite basic and would be likely to appearin any North- ern Iroquoian language.It was probably Iroquoian, which promp- ted Cartier to considerit the sameas Stadaconan. Whoever the Laurentians were, membersofthe group were clear- Iy Iroquoian and clearly in contact with the other Lake Iroquoian peoples, as evidenced by the spread of sound changessuch as the loss of *r and the fronting of back vowels, in addition to the pre- senceofborrowed words for such tradeditems asbeans. As awhole, the vocabularies seem about equidistant from all of the Lake languages.