Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Languages Of The Andes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Languages Of The Andes


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. THE LANGUAGES OF THE ANDESThe Andean and Pacific regions of South America are home to a remark-able variety of languages and language families, with a range of typologi-cal differences. This linguistic diversity results from a complex historicalbackground, comprising periods of greater communication between dif-ferent peoples and languages, and periods of fragmentation and individualdevelopment. The Languages of the Andes is the first book in English todocument in a single volume the indigenous languages spoken and for-merly spoken in this linguistically rich region, as well as in adjacent areas.Grouping the languages into different cultural spheres, it describes theircharacteristics in terms of language typology, language contact, and thesocial perspectives of present-day languages. The authors provide bothhistorical and contemporary information, and illustrate the languages withdetailed grammatical sketches. Written in a clear and accessible style, thisbook will be a valuable source for students and scholars of linguistics andanthropology alike. . .  is Professor of Amerindian Languages and Cul-tures at Leiden University. He has travelled widely in South Americaand has conducted fieldwork in Peru on different varieties of Quechuaand minor languages of the area. He has also worked on the historical-comparative reconstruction of South American languages, and since 1991has been involved in international activities addressing the issue of lan-guage endangerment. His previously published books include TarmaQuechua (1977) and Het Boek van Huarochir´ (1988). ı .  is Professor of Linguistics at the University ofNijmegen. He has travelled widely in the Caribbean and the Andes, andwas previously Professor of Sociolinguistics and Creole Studies at the Uni-versity of Amsterdam and Professor of Linguistics and Latin AmericanStudies at Leiden University. He is co-editor of the Cambridge jour-nal Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, and his previously publishedbooks include Bilingual Speech: a Typology of Code-mixing (Cambridge,2000), and One Speaker, Two Languages (co-edited with Lesley Milroy,Cambridge, 1995).
  • 2. CAMBRIDGE LANGUAGE SURVEYSGeneral editorsP. Austin (University of Melbourne)J. Bresnan (Stanford University)B. Comrie (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig)W. Dressler (University of Vienna)C. Ewen (University of Leiden)R. Lass (University of Cape Town)D. Lightfoot (University of Maryland)I. Roberts (University of Cambridge)S. Romaine (University of Oxford)N. V. Smith (University College London)This series offers general accounts of the major language families of theworld, with volumes organised either on a purely genetic basis or on ageographical basis, whichever yields the most convenient and intelligiblegrouping in each case. Each volume compares and contrasts the typologicalfeatures of the languages it deals with. It also treats the relevant genetic re-lationships, historical development and sociolinguistic issues arising fromtheir role and use in the world today. The books are intended for linguistsfrom undergraduate level upwards, but no special knowledge of the lan-guages under consideration is assumed. Volumes such as those on Australiaand the Amazon Basin are also of wider relevance, as the future of the lan-guages and their speakers raises important social and political issues.Volumes already published includeChinese Jerry NormanThe languages of Japan Masayoshi ShibataniPidgins and Creoles (volume I: Theory and structure; volume II: Reference survey) John A. HolmThe Indo-Aryan languages Colin MasicaThe Celtic languages edited by Donald MacAulayThe Romance languages Rebecca PosnerThe Amazonian languages edited by R. M. W Dixon and Alexandra Y. AikhenvaldThe languages of Native North America Marianne MithunThe Korean language Ho-Him SohnAustralian languages R. M. W. DixonThe Dravidian languages Bhadriraju Krishnamurti
  • 3. THE LANGUAGESOF THE ANDESWILLEM F. H. ADELAARwith the collaboration of P I E T E R C . M U Y S K E N
  • 4. cambridge university pressCambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São PauloCambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UKPublished in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New Yorkwww.cambridge.orgInformation on this title:© Willem F. H. Adelaar and Pieter C. Muysken 2004This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision ofrelevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take placewithout the written permission of Cambridge University Press.First published in print format 2004isbn-13 978-0-511-21587-2 eBook (NetLibrary)isbn-10 0-511-21587-8 eBook (NetLibrary)isbn-13 978-0-521-36275-7 hardbackisbn-10 0-521-36275-x hardbackCambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urlsfor external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does notguarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
  • 5. CONTENTS List of tables page x List of maps xiv Preface xv Orthographic conventions xvi List of abbreviations xx 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The languages of the Andes 4 1.2 Physical description 6 1.3 Brief history of the region 7 1.4 A brief overview of the different Andean countries 10 1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages 151.5.1 The colonial period 151.5.2 The nineteenth century 181.5.3 Contemporary Andean linguistics 19 1.6 Sources for the study of the languages of the Andes 20 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 221.7.1 History of classificatory efforts 231.7.2 Quechuan and Aymaran, Quechumaran 341.7.3 Other proposals for individual language families 361.7.4 The Greenberg (1987) proposal 41 2 The Chibcha Sphere 46 2.1 The language groups and their distribution 50 2.2 Research on the native languages of Colombia 54 2.3 Chocoan 56 2.4 Yurumangu´ ı 60 2.5 Cuna 61 2.6 The languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 66
  • 6. vi Contents 2.7 Chimila 75 2.8 Bar´ı 80 2.9 The Muisca language 81 2.9.1 Sources 82 2.9.2 Phonology 83 2.9.3 Grammar 89 2.9.4 Lexicon 103 2.9.5 A Muisca text 106 2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) 109 2.11 Yukpa and Magdalena valley Cariban 112 2.12 The Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast 115 2.13 Timote–Cuica 124 2.14 Jirajaran 129 2.15 P´ ez (Nasa Yuwe) a 130 2.16 Andaqu´ and the languages of the Upper Magdalena valley ı 138 2.17 Barbacoan languages 141 2.18 Kams´ a 151 2.19 Esmeralde˜ o n 155 2.20 Overview of the languages of the eastern Colombian lowlands 161 3 The Inca Sphere 165 3.1 The languages and their distribution 168 3.2 The Quechuan language family 179 3.2.1 The Quechua homeland 180 3.2.2 Historical overview of the colonial period 182 3.2.3 Dialect situation 183 3.2.4 Quechua studies 191 3.2.5 Phonology 194 3.2.6 Grammar 207 3.2.7 Characteristics of the Quechua lexicon 233 3.2.8 A sketch of an Ecuadorian Quechua dialect (Salasaca) 237 3.2.9 A sketch of a Peruvian Quechua dialect (Pacaraos) 242 3.2.10 A Cuzco Quechua text fragment 249 3.2.11 Literary production in Quechua 254 3.2.12 Social factors influencing the future of Quechua 256 3.3 The Aymaran language family 259 3.3.1 Past and present distribution 260 3.3.2 Homeland and expansion 263 3.3.3 Internal variation in the Aymaran language family 264
  • 7. Contents vii 3.3.4 Salient features of the Aymaran language family 267 3.3.5 Aymara phonology 270 3.3.6 Aymara grammar 274 3.3.7 Aymara lexicon 293 3.3.8 Literary production in Aymara 296 3.3.9 Aymara sample text 2963.3.10 The Jaqaru language 3013.3.11 Jaqaru sample text 315 3.4 The Mochica language 319 3.4.1 The sounds of Mochica 321 3.4.2 Mochica grammar 328 3.4.3 Mochica sample texts 344 3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 350 3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 362 3.7 The Atacame˜ o language n 375 3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´ language e 385 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages of the Inca Sphere 391 3.9.1 Ecuador 392 3.9.2 Northern Peru 397 3.9.3 Northwestern Argentina 407 4 The languages of the eastern slopes 411 4.1 The Pano–Tacanan languages 418 4.2 The Arawakan languages 422 4.2.1 Yanesha phonology 424 4.2.2 The principal grammatical features of Yanesha 425 4.2.3 Complex sentences in Yanesha 430 4.3 Tupi–Guaran´ ı 430 4.4 The Jivaroan languages 432 4.4.1 Shuar phonology 433 4.4.2 The principal grammatical features of Shuar 435 4.4.3 Complex sentences in Shuar 445 4.5 Cahuapana 447 4.6 Bora–Huitoto 449 4.7 The Zaparoan languages 451 4.8 The Tucanoan languages 453 4.9 Small families and supposed language isolates in Ecuador 454 4.10 Small families and supposed language isolates in Peru 456 4.11 Chol´ n o 460
  • 8. viii Contents 4.11.1The Chol´ n lexicon and relationship with Hibito o 461 4.11.2Gender-determined language use 462 4.11.3Chol´ n phonology o 463 4.11.4The principal grammatical features of Chol´ n o 463 4.11.5The basic word order of Chol´ n o 475 4.12Small families and supposed language isolates in Bolivia 475 4.13Chiquitano 477 4.13.1Gender-determined language use in Chiquitano 478 4.13.2Chiquitano phonology 479 4.13.3The principal grammatical features of Chiquitano 480 4.13.4Chiquitano word order 488 4.14The languages of the Chaco region: Guaicuruan, Matacoan, Zamucoan and Lengua–Mascoy 488 4.15 Quechua influences on eastern slopes languages 499 5 The Araucanian Sphere 502 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 508 5.1.1 Mapuche studies 510 5.1.2 The sounds of Mapuche 512 5.1.3 Grammar 517 5.1.4 Lexicon 537 5.1.5 Mapuche sample text 539 5.2 The Allentiac language 544 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 550 6.1 The languages and their distribution 552 6.2 Ethnohistory 555 6.3 Problems in classification 556 6.4 Linguistic features 558 6.4.1 The Chonan languages 558 6.4.2 Chono and Kawesqar 564 6.4.3 Yahgan 567 6.4.4 Areal-typological features of the Fuegian languages 578 6.5 Oral literature 580 6.6 Language contact 580 6.7 A Tehuelche text 582 7 The Spanish presence 585 7.1 Characteristics of Andean Spanish 585
  • 9. Contents ix7.1.1Demography and the Iberian dialectal origins 5867.1.2Linguistic features 587 7.2Amerindian substratum influence 589 7.3Language mixture and pidginisation in the Andes and the Amazon basin 602 7.4 African influences 604 7.5 Language planning and policy with respect to the Amerindian languages and to bilingual education 605 7.6 Andean languages in the modern world 608 Appendix: Inventory of languages and language families of the Andean region 610 References 625 Author index 681 Index of languages and ethnic groups 690 Subject index 703
  • 10. TABLES 1.1 Percentage of Indian population in the different Andean countries page 11 1.2 Early grammars of Andean languages 16 1.3 Greenberg’s (1956) classification of the languages of the Andes 28 1.4 The four networks proposed by Swadesh (1959, 1962) 29 1.5 The language families relevant to the Andes listed in Loukotka (1968) 31 1.6 Groupings suggested by Su´ rez (1974) of language families and a isolates included in Loukotka (1968) 32 1.7 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Kaufman (1990) with their correlates in Loukotka (1968) 33 1.8 Greenberg’s (1987) classification of the languages of the Andes 44 2.1 Overview of the consonant inventories of Chocoan languages and dialects 58 2.2 Cuna consonant inventory 63 2.3 Overview of the consonant inventories of the Arhuacan languages 68 2.4 Possessive modifiers in Chimila 77 2.5 Personal reference markers for subject and object in Chimila 78 2.6 Inventory of Muisca consonant phonemes 88 2.7 Inventory of Muisca vowel phonemes 88 2.8 Personal reference in Muisca 97 2.9 Inventory of Muisca pronoun and case combinations 1002.10 Uw Cuwa (Tunebo) consonant inventory 1102.11 Proto-Yukpa consonants 1132.12 Guajiro consonant inventory 1172.13 Personal prefixes and pronouns in Guajiro 120
  • 11. List of tables xi2.14 Caldono P´ ez obstruents a 1312.15 Caldono P´ ez continuants a 1322.16 Caldono P´ ez vowels a 1322.17 Person markers in Nasa Yuwe (P´ ez) a 1352.18 Guambiano consonant inventory 1432.19 Awa Pit (Cuaiquer) consonant inventory 1442.20 Tsafiki (Colorado) consonant inventory 1442.21 Cha palaachi (Cayapa) consonant inventory 1452.22 Awa Pit pronouns 1482.23 Cha palaachi pronouns 1482.24 Kams´ consonant phonemes a 1522.25 Kams´ personal reference markers a 153 3.1 Proto-Quechua consonants 196 3.2 Proto-Quechua vowels 196 3.3 The Quechua four-person system 211 3.4 Subject conjugation in Ayacucho Quechua 219 3.5 Valency-changing suffixes in Quechua 229 3.6 Jaqaru personal reference markers 269 3.7 La Paz Aymara consonant inventory 271 3.8 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the unmarked tense 282 3.9 Subject and subject–object endings for the future tense in La Paz and Sitajara Aymara 2843.10 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the imperative mood 2853.11 Subject and subject–object endings for the present and past potential mood in La Paz Aymara 2863.12 Nominalising affixes in Aymara 2883.13 Jaqaru consonant inventory 3023.14 Subject and subject–object endings of the unmarked tense in Jaqaru 3073.15 Subject and subject–object endings of the future tense in Jaqaru 3083.16 Mochica vowels as represented in Carrera Daza (1644) and Middendorf (1892) 3243.17 Sibilants in seventeenth-century Mochica 3263.18 Overview of the consonant symbols in the Mochica grammars of Carrera Daza (1644) and Middendorf (1892) 3293.19 Personal reference in Mochica 331
  • 12. xii List of tables3.20 Mochica preterit and future tenses 3373.21 Numerals 1 to 10 in Mochica 3433.22 Puquina personal and possessive pronouns 3533.23 Possessed nouns in Callahuaya 3593.24 Personal and possessive pronouns in Callahuaya 3603.25 Callahuaya consonant inventory 3613.26 Chipaya consonant inventory 3643.27 Unmarked present tense in Chipaya 3713.28 Tentative inventory of Atacame˜ o sounds n 3803.29 Possessive nominal paradigm in Atacame˜ o n 3813.30 Atacame˜ o personal and possessive pronouns n 3823.31 Verbal past-tense paradigm in Atacame˜ on 3833.32 Lule personal endings for unmarked tense and nominal possession 3893.33 Lule future and imperative verbal paradigms 389 4.1 The relationship between the Arawakan languages of the pre-Andean area 423 4.2 Yanesha (Amuesha) phoneme inventory 424 4.3 The relationship among the pre-Andean members of the Tupi–Guaran´ language family ı 431 4.4 Shuar phoneme inventory 434 4.5 The Shuar switch-reference system illustrated with the verb ant- ‘to hear’ 446 4.6 Phoneme inventory of Bora 450 4.7 Phoneme inventory of Huao 454 4.8 The sound inventory of Chol´ n o 464 4.9 Chiquitano phoneme inventory 4804.10 Phoneme inventory of Toba 4894.11 Phoneme inventory of Bolivian (Noctenes) Mataco 4934.12 Reconstructed consonant system of Proto-Matacoan 4954.13 Phoneme inventory of Ayoreo 496 5.1 Mapuche consonant inventory 517 5.2 Personal and possessive pronouns in Mapuche 519 5.3 Mapuche subject endings 523 5.4 Unmarked verbal paradigm in Allentiac 546 5.5 Interrogative verbal paradigm in Allentiac 547 6.1 The relation between putative Chono words identified by Bausani (1975) and their possible equivalents in the Alacalufan materials of Skottsberg (1913) and Clairis (1987) 553
  • 13. List of tables xiii 6.2 Historical demographic data for the canoe nomads 555 6.3 Historical demographic data for the hunter nomads 555 6.4 Phoneme inventory of Selk nam 559 6.5 Phoneme inventory of G¨ n¨ na Yajich u u 562 6.6 Phoneme inventory of Tehuelche 563 6.7 Tentative sound inventory of Chono 565 6.8 Phonemes of Kawesqar 566 6.9 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Golbert de Goodbar 1977 and Poblete and Salas 1999) 5686.10 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Adam 1885) 5696.11 Person inflection in Yahgan 5756.12 Phonological features of the Fuegian languages 5796.13 Morphological features of the Fuegian languages 5796.14 Constituent order features of the Fuegian languages 579 7.1 Major isoglosses in the Andean areas of Latin American Spanish 588 7.2 Types of speakers of Spanish that may show influence from Quechua 590 7.3 Sprachbund phenomena in the pronunciation of liquids and vibrants in different varieties of Quechua and Spanish in Ecuador 591 7.4 Features claimed to be due to Quechua in different varieties of Spanish 593
  • 14. MAPS Map 1 The Chibcha Sphere: overview of ethnolinguistic groups attested in premodern sources page 47 Map 2 The Chibcha Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the mid twentieth century 51 Map 3 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the sixteenth century 166 Map 4 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the mid twentieth century 169 Map 5 Approximate distribution of Quechua dialects in Peru and adjacent areas 184 Map 6 Distribution of Aymaran and Uru–Chipaya languages 260 Map 7 Eastern lowland languages: Ecuador and northern Peru 412 Map 8 Eastern lowland languages: southern Peru 413 Map 9 Eastern lowland languages: Bolivia 414Map 10 Eastern lowland languages: the Chaco area 415Map 11 The Araucanian Sphere: approximate distribution of languages at the time of the Spanish conquest (sixteenth century) 503Map 12 The Araucanian Sphere: twentieth-century distribution of indigenous languages 504Map 13 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 551
  • 15. PREFACEThis book took much longer to write than originally intended, particularly because verylittle was known about some of the regions to be covered, while much new material hasbecome available these last few years. We hope this survey will in its turn inspire newresearch in the years to come. We wish to thank first of all Bernard Comrie for his precise and encouraging commentson earlier chapter drafts. We are very grateful to Ana Fern´ ndez, Timothy Curnow, Knut aOlawsky and Nicholas Ostler for reading and commenting on specific chapters of thebook. A special word of thanks goes to Rodolfo Cerr´ n-Palomino for providing us with odata from his ongoing research on the Chipaya language, and to Alfredo Torero forpermitting us to use his unpublished work on Puquina. Many colleagues and friendshave contributed over the years with valuable advice and commentary, by providing uswith newly published or little-known publications, or by calling our attention to newmaterials and research results. Their generosity is duly remembered, although spacedoes not allow us to mention each of them individually. Our gratitude extends in particular to those academic institutions that have providedthe environment and the facilities necessary for an undertaking such as the present one:the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) in Wassenaar, the Netherlands, theResearch Centre for Linguistic Typology (RCLT) at La Trobe University in Victoria,Australia, the Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies andthe Faculty of Letters of Leiden University. While the book was written under the primary authorship and responsibility ofWillem Adelaar, the individual chapters were divided as follows: Pieter Muysken wrotesections 1.1–1.5 of chapter 1 and Adelaar the introductory pages of chapter 1 as well assections 1.6–1.7. Adelaar also wrote chapter 2 except for section 2.15, chapter 3 exceptfor section 3.2.8, and all of chapter 5. Muysken wrote chapters 4, 6 and 7, as well as thesections 2.15 and 3.2.8.
  • 16. ORTHOGRAPHIC CONVENTIONSThis book on Andean languages relies on heterogeneous sources, including premoderngrammatical studies and vocabularies, as well as contemporary descriptions obtainedby direct observation of living languages. These circumstances made it difficult to adopta uniform orthographic practice. The spelling of colonial and other traditional sourceshas been preserved, allowing for marginal adaptations where the sources are internallyinconsistent. Languages such as Allentiac, Muisca and Puquina, which have long beenextinct, are known from premodern sources only, and the interpretation of the symbolsused to represent them remains tentative. In the case of relatively recent data fromlanguages that became extinct during the twentieth century, such as Mochica and Timote–Cuica, the identification of sounds can be problematic when the recorded materials arenot in agreement with modern linguistic standards. Such materials are exemplified in theoriginal spelling as well. Finally, there are premodern sources relating to languages stillspoken, for instance, Valdivia’s Araucanian grammar of 1606. The use of premodernsources includes exotic symbols, such as cɥ , c− h, γ and œ. Among the languages h,primarily known from premodern sources, the only one presented in a reconstructed,rather than an original spelling is Chol´ n (see section 4.11.3). o For most of the living languages we are on firmer ground, although for these too wehave to rely on published sources with different methodological approaches, theoreticalbackgrounds and degrees of phonological abstraction. In view of the necessity to repre-sent such heterogeneous materials, we have opted for a phonetically based orthographysuch as commonly found in North American linguistic journals dealing with Amerindianlanguages (e.g. International Journal of American Linguistics). Consequently, severalof the original symbols have been replaced with others, and adjustments have been madeat the level of individual languages so as to facilitate the presentation of the linguisticfacts in a unified way.1 In a number of cases (e.g. Guajiro l and r, Mapuche r, Quechuan and q) concessions have been made to established practice. Such deviations of the1 We wish to apologise beforehand for the inevitable errors and inconsistencies that are inherent to this procedure.
  • 17. Orthographic Conventions xviioverall orthographic practice adhered to in this book are duly explained in the respectivesections. VowelsWhen only vowel quality is taken into consideration, most languages of the Andeanregion select their vowels from a set of five, including two front vowels (e, i), two roundedback vowels (o, u) and one low vowel (a). These vowels usually exhibit a certain amountof non-distinctive variation, which is not shown in the orthography except when thephonetic realisation itself is a topic of discussion. In addition, many Andean languagesalso have an unrounded vowel which may be high central, mid central, or high back.We represent this sixth vowel by means of the symbol , regardless of its exact phoneticnature and possible existing spelling conventions. For the representation of languagesexhibiting an additional contrast between a high central and a mid central vowel weuse the symbols and ə to distinguish between the two. The main reason for followingthis procedure is to preserve unity in the presentation. It is, furthermore, justified bythe consideration that the sixth vowel often shows a wide range of non-contrastivevariation, depending on the phonetic environment in which it occurs, and the fact thatthe observations of different authors rarely coincide, even when they are dealing withthe same language. In the absence of specialised phonetic studies, almost non-existentin the case of Andean languages, the exact phonetic nature of the sixth vowel generallyremains uncertain. Vowel systems of a different qualitative structure are found in Mochica, in languages ofthe Amazonian lowlands, and in languages of Tierra del Fuego. They will be discussedin the respective chapters (sections 3.4.1, 4.6 and 6.4). For these cases, as well as inexplanative phonetic representations relating to more current Andean systems, additionalsymbols (ɑ, α, œ, ε, ¨, ɔ, ɯ ) are used. ı Secondary articulations of the vowels – Vowel length is indicated by a colon (a:, e:, i:, o:, u:), except when the long vowel consists of several tone-bearing units. In that case, the vowels are written separately (aa, etc.). Extra short vowels are marked as follows: a, e, ˇ, o, u. ˇ ˇ ı ˇ ˇ – Nasal vowels: a, e, ˜, o, u, etc. ˜ ˜ ı ˜ ˜ – Aspirated vowels: ah , eh , ih , oh , uh , etc. – Glottalised vowels: aʔ , eʔ , iʔ , oʔ , uʔ , etc. – Voiceless vowels: a, e, i, o, u, etc. ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ – Tonal contrast is indicated by means of an acute accent (for high or rising tone), a grave accent (for low or falling tone), a superscript level stroke (for mid level tone), or a circumflex (for a descending tonal glide): a, a, a, ´ ` ¯
  • 18. xviii Orthographic Conventions a. Contrastive stress is also indicated by means of an acute accent. Stress ˆ and tone are indicated only when contrastive. Non-syllabic vowelsWhen non-syllabic, the high vowels i and u are analysed as glides, hence they are writtenas y and w, respectively. This is always the case in syllable-initial position ( yV, wV ), andit is the preferred option in postvocalic syllable-final position (Vy, Vw). Occasionally,however, postvocalic glides are represented as vowels (Vi, Vu), when the status of vowelsequences in the language under discussion appears to favour that choice. ConsonantsIn the following overview the consonant symbols are grouped in categories: – Bilabial: plain stops p, b; implosive stop: ; fricatives ϕ, β ; nasal m; glide w. – Labiodental: fricatives f, v. – Interdental: stops t , d; fricatives θ, ð; nasal n. ˆ ˆ ˆ – Alveodental: plain stops t, d; implosive stop ; affricates c (t s in phonetic explanations), d z (dz before secondary articulation markers, as in dz y ); fricatives s, z; nasal n. – Apico-alveolar: fricative s; affricate t s . ¸ ¸ z ˇ – Alveopalatal: affricates c, d ; fricatives s, z; glide y. ˇ ˇ ˇ – Retroflex: stops .t, d; affricates c, d .z ; fricatives s, z; nasal n; glide ɺ. . ˇ ˇ . ˇ ˇ . . . – Palatalised velar (ich-laut): fricative: c; affricate: t c . ¸ ¸ – Velar: stops: k, g; fricatives x, γ; nasal ŋ. – Uvular (or postvelar): stops q, G; fricatives x, ʁ .. – Glottal: fricative h; stop ʔ. (Note: h can also refer to a velar fricative because many Andean languages tend to use glottal and velar fricatives in a non-distinctive way.) – Laterals: plain (voiced alveodental) l; interdental l; retroflex . ; voiceless l fricative l ; voiceless affricate λ. ˜ - – Vibrants: voiced tap r; trill rr; tap with palatal affrication r; retroflex ˇ flap . Secondary articulations of the consonants – Gemination is indicated by doubling the consonant symbol (pp, kk, nn, etc.). Double rr represents a trill, rather than only a geminate. (Quechua nn is a cluster [ŋn]; see section 3.2.5.)
  • 19. Orthographic Conventions xix – Coarticulation is indicated by juxtaposition of the symbols: kp, pk, pkw . – Glottalisation: p’ t’ c’ k’ q’ etc. , , ˇ, , , – Aspiration (of stops and affricates): ph , th , ch , kh , qh , etc. ˇ – Preaspiration or voicelessness (of resonants): hm, hn, hr, etc. – Palatalisation: ty , ky , ny , ly , etc. – Labialisation: pw , mw , kw , xw , etc. – Prenasalisation (or postoralisation): mb, nd, ŋg. – Postnasalisation (or preoralisation): bm , dn , g ŋ. – Click-like articulation: p< , m< . – Syllabic resonants: l, n. ˚ ˚ Other symbols and conventions V Vowel (only in phonological explanation). C Consonant. [. . .] Phonetic representation or tentative pronunciation. Etymological provenance or borrowing source.<. . .> Symbols used in premodern sources.{ . . . } Explanation of morphological structure. - Morpheme boundary. Division of morphemic glosses. = Division of constituents in reduplicated forms. . Division of speech elements covered by a single morphemic gloss. Division of morphemic glosses relating to a portmanteau speech element.
  • 20. ABBREVIATIONSIn the example sentences of this book morphemic glosses may consist of numbers,letters, or letter combinations. For reasons of presentation, all letter combinations havebeen limited to a maximum of two elements. Grammatical person is indicated by meansof the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, which refer to the four-person system characteristic of thestructure of some of the languages treated in this work: 1 first person (speaker) 2 second person (addressee) 3 third person (neither) 4 fourth person (speaker + addressee)These numbers can be followed by the symbols S (subject), O (object), or P (possessor)without an intervening hyphen or dot: 1S, 2S, 3S, 4S first-person subject, etc. 1O, 2O, 3O, 4O first-person object, etc. 1P, 2P, 3P, 4P first-person possessor, etc.The following list is an inventory of all the remaining morphemic glosses, which consistof letters or letter combinations. A absolute (as opposed to relational) absolutive (as opposed to ergative) AB ablative case AC accusative case AD additive (‘also’, ‘even’) AF affirmative (evidential) AG agentive nominaliser AJ adjective adjectiviser AL allative case
  • 21. List of abbreviations xxiAN anticompletive (‘still’, ‘yet’)AO aoristAP applicativeAR attributiveAS assistanceAT attenuatorAU augmentativeAV adverbialiserAX auxiliaryB benefactive caseBN beneficiaryC comitative caseCA causativeCD conditional moodCE centripetal (converging motion)CF centrifugal (diverging motion)CL classifier or shape morpheme (with semantic specification, e.g. CL: round object)CM completive (‘already’)CN continuativeCO co-ordinationCP comparative (‘like’)CR circular motion (‘go around’)CS courteousCT change of topicCU customaryCV copula verbaliserD dualDA dative caseDB distributiveDC deicticDD different directionsDE desiderativeDF definiteDG degreeDI diminutiveDL delimitative (‘just’, ‘only’)DM detrimental
  • 22. xxii List of abbreviations DP deductive past DR directional DS different subjects (in switch-reference systems) DT distal DU dubitative DV declarative DW downward motion E ergative case EC exclamation EM emphatic ES external subject EU euphonic element EV event/action EX exclusive (addressee excluded) F future FA factitive (‘make’) FE feminine FM factual mood FN future-oriented nominaliser FO focus FR far remote G genitive case GA genitive agent GO goal GP generic pair GR gerund H hither (motion towards speaker) HB habitual past HN honorific HO hortative HS hearsay (evidential) HY hypothetical I inverse IA imperfective aspect IC inchoative ID indicative mood IE irrealis mood IF infinitive
  • 23. List of abbreviations xxiiiII indefiniteIK indirect knowledgeIL inferentialIM imperative moodIN inclusion (‘provided with’)IP inferential pastIR interrogativeIS instrumental caseIT intensiveIU immediate futureIV inclusive (addressee included)IW inward motionL locative caseLA lack (‘not having’)LB left-behind objectLI limitative case (‘until’)LK linking elementLN locality nominaliserLP lexicalised prefixLS lexicalised suffixLV locative verbaliserM momentaneousMA motion across (‘traverse’)MD medialMS masculineMT motionN noun nominaliserNA narrative pastNC non-controlND non-determinateNE negationNF near futureNM nominative caseNP nominal pastNR near remoteNS non-speakerNT non-transitive
  • 24. xxiv List of abbreviations NU neutral O object OB obligation OC oblique case OE ongoing event OS ownership (‘having’) OV obviative P possessor PA past tense PC paucal PD predicate marker PE perfect tense PF perfective aspect PI privative PL plural PM permissive PN present tense PO potential mood PR progressive PS passive PT perlative case (path) PU pronoun PV previous event PX proximate Q question marker QU quotative R relativiser RC reciprocal RD realis mood RE recent past RF reflexive RL relational (possessed) RM remote past RO reportative RP repetitive RR referential RS restitutive RU remote future
  • 25. List of abbreviations xxvS subjectSA simple aspectSD sudden discovery tenseSG singularSI simulationSJ subjunctive moodSM simultaneousSO sourceSN stative nominaliserSP supineSQ sequentialSR speakerSS same subject (in switch-reference systems)ST stateSU subordinationT transitive transitiviserTF transformative (‘become’)TH thither (motion not towards speaker)TO topicTS thematic suffixTV thematic vowelU urgencyUF unfulfilledUG undergoerUN unspecified subjectUW upward motionV verb verbaliserVE verbal extensionVO vocativeZ zero complementZP zero person
  • 26. 1 IntroductionIn his book Visi´ n hist´ rica del Per´ (A Historical Vision of Peru) the Peruvian historian o o uPablo Macera (1978) dates the beginning of human presence in the middle Andes at about20,000 BC. The supposition of such an early human occupation, difficult to explainwithin the context of New World prehistory, is based on datings relating to excavationsconducted by MacNeish at the highland site of Pikimachay of the Pacaicasa complex nearAyacucho (cf. MacNeish 1979). These datings are now considered very controversial (cf.Rick 1988). Although Macera himself recognises the uncertain character of the 20,000BC date, its value is more than just scientific. It acquires the character of a fictitiousdate, needed to express the emotional feeling of timeless antiquity often associated withAndean culture and tradition, a feeling that is best put into words by the expressionmilenarismo andino (‘Andean millenarism’). It is not the cold evidence of radiocarbondatings, but the conscience of an immobile human society that clings fatalistically toage-old agricultural traditions perfectly adjusted to the formidable Andean landscape,that determines the view of the Andean intellectual until today. It is the view of a realitywhich has always been there, seemingly immune to the triviality of programmes aimedat modernisation and globalisation. In the meantime, the antiquity of human settlement in the Andean region, indeed inall of South America, remains a matter of debate. The rise of sea levels at the end of theIce Age (± 10,000–8000 BC) may have hidden the traces of early coastal occupation.Excavations conducted by Dillehay at Monte Verde, near Puerto Montt in the southof Chile, have brought evidence of a relatively well-developed village culture that hadits beginnings as early as 11,500 BC. (Dillehay 1989–97; cf. also Fiedel 1992). Theinhospitable southern tip of South America at the Strait of Magellan (Fell’s Cave) wasinhabited about 9000 BC. When considering the linguistic evidence, the bewilderingvariety of mutually unrelated languages found in South America suggests a protracted,gradual process of penetration, followed by long periods of isolation. This evidenceappears to be in conflict with the traditional concept of a rapid colonisation of thesubcontinent by big-game hunters, associated with the Clovis horizon of the North
  • 27. 2 1 IntroductionAmerican plains (± 9500 BC). For an overview of the arguments in favour of a rapidcolonisation of South America after 9500 BC, see Lynch (1999). For the Pacific side of the South American continent, the alternative of an early humanpenetration in a context of marine and coastal activity remains attractive to those familiarwith the Andean situation, even though there is little support from archaeology. The dateat which human activity throughout the Andean region becomes unequivocally visibleis 9000 BC. From a cultural point of view, the Andean civilisation initially did not lag behind therest of the world. Its agricultural beginnings were among the oldest in the world. Thesite of Guitarrero cave in the Callej´ n de Huaylas (north-central Peru) contains evidence oof plant domestication (beans, peppers) before 8000 BC (Lynch 1980; Fiedel 1992:193). Agriculture in the Andes reached a high degree of sophistication, both in diversityof crops and in engineering techniques (terraces, raised fields, irrigation works). TheAndean camelids possibly became domesticated as early as 4000 BC (evidence fromTelarmachay, Jun´n, in central Peru; Fiedel 1992: 195). The mummification techniques ıof the Chinchorro fishermen of the coast near Arica in northern Chile (5000 to 1500 BC)predated those of the Egyptians (Arriaza 1995). The construction of the extensive (pre-ceramic) urban settlement of Caral-Chupacigarro, which has been excavated since 1996near Supe in the central Peruvian coastal area, has been dated at about 2650 BC (ShadySol´s 1997). Curiously, the Andean society failed to develop an indigenous writing sys- ıtem, a circumstance that sets it apart from other areas of civilisation elsewhere in theworld. The variety of native cultures and languages in South America, in particular in theAndes and on its eastern slopes, is remarkable even within the context of the NewWorld. Kaufman (1990) has calculated the number of language families and geneti-cally isolated languages in the subcontinent at 118. Recent advances in the study ofhistorical-comparative relations have tended to reduce this number, but proposed group-ings reducing the number of families mainly concern the eastern part of South America(cf. Dixon and Aikhenvald 1999). The Andean area, with its wealth of mutually unre-lated languages, has remained as opaque as ever in this respect. The linguistic diversityis not only genetic; the typological distance between some of the language groups isalso impressive. It suffices to have a quick look at almost neighbouring languages suchas Quechua, Mochica and Harakmbut to be struck by the differences. The historical picture is further obscured by the radical changes that have affectedSouth America during the last five centuries of the second millennium. Scores ofnative languages, including entire families, have disappeared, often without leavinga trace. Others have dwindled to insignificant numbers. A few of them, includingAymara, Mapuche and Quechua, maintained a prominent position during the colonialperiod, partly at the cost of other languages, only to become endangered themselves
  • 28. 1 Introduction 3in the subsequent period. Mapuche, Muisca and Quechua acted as linguae francae forlocal tongues, which were considered obstacles to evangelisation and effective domi-nation. Most languages, however, gave way to Spanish, the language introduced by theconquerors. The Spanish occupation, which for the Andean region began in Panam´ , the Caribbean acoast of Colombia and Venezuela, and at the mouth of the River Plate, brought deathand destruction for many native groups. The prosperous and numerous Cueva peopleof the Darien region in eastern Panam´ were exterminated between 1510 and 1535, atheir country depopulated, given back to the jungle, and partly occupied by other na-tive groups (Romoli 1987). Many others were forced to participate in civil wars or tojoin discovery parties geared at finding the legendary country of El Dorado (Hemming1978). Epidemics of devastating dimensions swept through the continent even before theconquest. Huayna Capac, the last ruler of the undivided Inca empire, became one of theirvictims. After the arrival of the Europeans and during the first half of the colonial periodthe native population dropped dramatically. Many nations, such as the Quimbaya of theCauca river valley in Colombia, known as the New World’s most talented goldsmiths,disappeared with their languages during that period. At the same time a benign andprotective colonial rule guaranteed a state of relative quietude and prosperity. Duringmost of the colonial period widely used native languages, such as Quechua, benefitedfrom a certain prestige and legal protection. In 1770 the new Bourbon administrationheaded by Charles III banned the use of the indigenous languages from his domains andstarted a period of effective repression (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 499–511; Mannheim1991: 74–9). In Peru the repression gained momentum in 1781 after the unsuccessfuloutcome of the Indian rebellion led by Tupac Amaru II. The independence of the South American nations was at first a new drawback forthe native populations. As a last manifestation of indigenous sentiment, the act of 1816declaring the independence of the United Provinces of R´o de la Plata, the predecessor of ıArgentina, was printed in Tucum´ n both in Spanish and in Quechua. Subsequently, the alinguistic and cultural rights of native South Americans were discontinued everywhere.In the more traditional areas with large indigenous populations, the hacienda system withits oppressive bondage practices reached its worst dimensions. Physical elimination bymilitary forces or headhunters struck the Indians of Argentina, Uruguay and ChileanTierra del Fuego, who had largely remained independent throughout the colonial period.The Araucanians of southern Chile lost their independence and integrity as a nation. Theincrease in the exploitation of rubber around the turn of the nineteenth century broughtuntold misery to the tribes of the Peruvian and Colombian rainforest, including slavery,deportation and ruthless massacres (Taussig 1987; Gray 1996). Until the second half of the twentieth century, the attitude of the South Americangovernments and national societies remained indifferent to the existence of the native
  • 29. 4 1 Introductionlanguages, if not overtly hostile. The survival of these languages depended on the per-severance of their speakers, occasionally with the support of sympathising groups, suchas indigenista circles or missionaries. Only during the last decades has there been agrowing awareness at the national level of the importance of the cultural and linguisticheritage and the practical consequences of a multilingual reality. It started in 1975 in Peruwith the recognition of Quechua as a second national language, a measure now largelyforgotten. Meanwhile, the multicultural and multilingual character of the Bolivian na-tion has been recognised at the official level. A strong movement of highland Indianshas come to play a crucial role in Ecuadorian politics. Finally, the cultural and terri-torial rights of native groups have been recognised in Colombia’s constitution of 1991(see section 1.4 below). There have been several more or less successful attempts tointroduce bilingual education in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. Needless to say, the prac-tical elaboration of all these measures and their effectiveness still leave much to bedesired. 1.1 The languages of the AndesThe languages of the Andes are not at all structurally similar, nor directly related, andare spoken in a huge area. Nonetheless, there are many connections between them, andthey share a recent history of domination by Spanish. To us falls the task of both pointingout general traits, and doing justice to their various properties. It is only when comparedto each other that their individuality emerges most clearly. In addition, we must try to stay clear of viewing these languages as static. In Raceet histoire (1952) L´ vi-Strauss warns against viewing other civilisations as either infant eor stationary. When we sit in a train, our perception of the movement of other trainsdepends on the direction they are travelling in, with respect to our own train. The history of the Andes is characterised by an alternation between periods of greatercommunication and integration of different peoples and languages, and periods of frag-mentation and individual development. For this reason we must find, on occasion, amiddle perspective between the Andean region as a whole and individual languages. Wehave tried to establish this by describing the Andean languages grouped into different‘spheres’, zones which at different points in time have functioned as single units. Withinthese cultural spheres, the languages have influenced each other, sometimes rather pro-foundly. Hence our repeated insistence on the phenomenon of language contact in thechapters that follow. This book consists of seven chapters. In the introductory chapter we begin by sketchingthe geographical and the historical context in which the languages of the Andes attainedtheir present form and use. We then turn to an overview of the linguistic and demographicsituation of the Indians in each of the Andean countries, and to the history of descriptiveand comparative studies of the languages of the Andes. Finally, we give a brief outline of
  • 30. 1.1 The languages of the Andes 5the history of classificatory efforts for the Andean languages. More details are providedin chapters 2 to 6, which deal with specific regions or spheres. Chapter 2 deals with the Chibcha Sphere, which we define as the Venezuelan Andesand Colombia, including some of the border areas of Colombia with Peru and Ecuador.In chapter 3 the Inca Sphere is discussed, roughly the area covered by the Inca empire:highland and coastal Ecuador and Peru, highland Bolivia, northern Chile and north-west Argentina. Chapter 4 deals with the eastern slopes of the Andes and the up-per Amazon basin in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, and some information on the GranChaco area of Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay will be included. Chapter 5 is dedi-cated to the Araucanian Sphere: the Chilean coast and highlands and part of south-central Argentina. Chapter 6 treats the languages of Tierra del Fuego and adjacentPatagonia. Chapter 7, finally, deals with the non-Indian languages, primarily Spanish, but alsoAfro-Hispanic survivals, as well as Amerindian contact vernaculars. In addition, policiesof bilingual education and language maintenance are surveyed. Language contact in the Andes has taken several forms. First, we find the use of spe-cific lexical items (e.g. the Quechua word waranqa ‘thousand’ or reflexes of Quechuaatawaly pa ‘chicken’, ‘rooster’) in a wide variety of languages, many of which havenever been in direct contact with the language of source. This suggests extensiveand, as Nordenski¨ ld (1922) argues, sometimes fairly rapid transmission, over a wide oarea. Second, we find cases of intense lexical influence from either a demographically or aculturally dominant language, as in the case of Mapuche influence on G¨ n¨ na K¨ ne in u u uArgentina, or Quechua influence on Amuesha on the Andean foothills in Peru. Third, there is evidence of highly complex patterns of long-term convergence, inter-ference and mutual lexical influence in the contact between languages of the Aymaranand Quechuan families. The contact has been so intense in this case that for a longtime the two families were thought to be directly related. We will address the questionwhether the situation of Aymara and Quechua is unique in South America, or whetherthere are other cases of intense mutual influence as well. Fourth, there are documented patterns of language mixture through relexification,e.g. in the case of Media Lengua in Ecuador and the Callahuaya in Bolivia, a group ofitinerant herbal curers, who used a sort of secret language with elements of Puquina andQuechua. Fifth, a phenomenon frequently observed is the fusion of the remnants of a tribe thathas been decimated in number with another more vigorous tribe. Under the protectionof their new social environment such tiny groups may preserve a language for gener-ations, and only gradually adopt the dominant language, as in the Chiquitano area inBolivia.
  • 31. 6 1 Introduction Finally, the Indian languages of the Andes have responded in different ways to thepressures from Spanish, from incidental lexical borrowing, through convergence andrelexification, to shift and substrate. In the chapters to follow these different types of contact will be explored in somedetail. 1.2 Physical descriptionThe Andes – or, more properly speaking, the Cordilleras de los Andes – constitutea mountain range about 7,000 kilometres long. They stretch all along the west coastof South America, from near Caracas to Cape Horn. On the average, the Andes are400 kilometres wide, but at the twentieth parallel, at the altitude of Bolivia, over900 kilometres. Steep on the western or Pacific side, the Andes are flanked by lowerridges on the eastern side, providing a more gradual transition to the Amazon and LaPlata basins. In the south the Andes start out as a single ridge, but in northern Chile theysplit up into several ridges, enclosing the widening altiplano (high plain) of Bolivia andsouthern Peru. Through northern Peru and Ecuador there are two ranges, with a valley inbetween. In southern Colombia these join again before fanning out over this country inthree separate cordilleras, the easternmost of which reaches into Venezuela. The Andesare a very high range, with several dozen peaks above 6,000 metres, and generally veryhigh passes. Only the Chamaya highlands, at the border between Ecuador and Peru,provide an easy passage from the Amazon basin to the Pacific, as Raymond (1988: 281)points out, providing the opportunity for tropical forest/coastal plain contacts startingin early prehistory. For our purposes, the physical characteristics of the Andes are important for a numberof reasons. First of all, because of their inhospitable character they have provided zonesof refuge for numerous indigenous groups. We have but to compare Bolivia, whereboth remote mountainous regions and inaccessible Andean foothill areas have providedniches for Indian languages, with the Argentinian plains, where widely spread Indiangroups were destroyed by the regular Argentinian army in the nineteenth century, torealise the effect that the physical environment has in this respect. The linguistic andcultural zones of refuge exist both where extremely harsh conditions or poor soils madecolonisation difficult or unprofitable, and where the terrain made communication withand travel to regional centres an ordeal. Within the ecological perspective taken here, itis important to ask ourselves, for each indigenous language in South America and eachgroup, how come it still exists, resisting or escaping destruction or assimilation? A second crucial aspect of the Andes, with its often steep slopes, is that it has madeavailable different ecosystems even to a single ethnic group. Thus we find the Quechua-speaking Saraguro Indians in the province of Loja, southern Ecuador, cultivating maizeand other cereal crops in the highlands in alternation with the raising of cattle on theeastern slopes. Murra (1975) has documented a very extensive system of ‘vertically’
  • 32. 1.3 Brief history of the region 7organised barter and economic cooperation networks in the Andes of Bolivia and Peru,in which groups located at different altitudes were allied. Sometimes these subgroupsbelonged to the same ethnolinguistic group, sometimes they did not. Altiplano groupssuch as that of the Bolivian Lupaca kingdom relied on an archipelago of lower-downsettlements for their coca leaves and maize crops. Third, the mountains influence the climates in the Andean region enormously, inconjunction with the Humboldt current. In the extreme south, the western slopes arehumid, and on the eastern side, Patagonia, it is dry. Near Valparaiso, however, where theHumboldt current reaches the Chilean coastline, the coast becomes a desert and the east-ern side more humid. This is the situation throughout Peru. At the altitude of theEcuadorian border it changes again: tropical rains fall on both sides of the Andes.In Colombia, the coastal zone is hot and humid, and the central valleys are cooler. Thuswe have virtually all existing climates represented in the region we are studying: fromthe Pacific deserts of Chile and Peru through the rainforest near the Brazilian borders ofBolivia, Peru and Colombia, to the permanent snow of the mountains in the altiplanoregions around Lake Titicaca. 1.3 Brief history of the regionWe will sketch the prehistory of the Andean region on the basis of Peruvian prehistory,since it has been studied in the greatest detail and provides a point of reference for thewhole region. At various points we will link developments in the northern and southernAndes to the central region focused on here. In Keatinge (1988a, b) the archaeological evidence is reviewed, and it is concludedthat the earliest human occupation of the central Andes that is well documented datesback to 9000–8000 BC. The early occupants were hunters and gatherers, and they hadwell-defined lithic technologies. Soon settlements emerged, on the coast centred aroundfishing and gathering shellfish, and in the highlands based on the domestication ofplants and animals. Although in the central Andes the preceramic period lasted tillaround 1800 BC, there is evidence of high levels of cultural evolution, e.g. in largeconstructions such as at Sech´n Alto. ı The ceramic period is characterised by phases in which cultural elements were sharedby groups in the whole central Andes, called Horizons, and intermediary periods inwhich cultural developments (as reflected, for instance, in ceramic patterns) were moreregional. The Early Horizon (900 BC– AD 200), is associated with the Chavin de Hu´ ntar areligious shrine and represents the consolidation of a pan-Andean religious foundation.The Middle Horizon (AD 600–1000, according to Keatinge 1988a, b) is linked with thetwo large urban centres of Huari and Tiahuanaco, which may have been the capitals oftwo empires: Tiahuanaco around the Titicaca basin and extending into western Boliviaand northern Chile, and Huari extending as far as the northern Peruvian coastal plains.These zones of influence did not last for more than two centuries, but they formed the
  • 33. 8 1 Introductionscene for a large network of exchange of goods, visual motifs and patterns of organisationthroughout the whole central Andes. The shared religious heritage remains, however, inthe subsequent period of regionalisation and is preserved in such centres as Pachacamac.During this period of regionalisation we do see large kingdoms emerging, particularlyon the coastal plains of northern Peru, such as the Chim´ kingdom. The Late Horizon ucorresponds to the Inca period, to which we will turn shortly. To the north in Ecuador we find equally old early settlements, both near Quito andon the Santa Elena Peninsula, where there are traces of some of the earliest New Worldceramics and textiles. Ecuador was at the crossroads between the Peruvian civilisationsjust mentioned and circum-Caribbean cultures. The bivalve shell spondylus, fished alongthe Pacific coast of Ecuador (and later much further north as well), was a highly valuedobject of trade, not just in Ecuador but also in Peru, particularly in the Chav´n culture. ı Colombian archaeological remains date back to 8000 BC at the site of Tequendama(Correal and Van der Hammen 1977; Lynch 1999). Ceramic techniques were knownas early as 3000 BC at the site of Puerto Hormiga on the Colombian Caribbean coast(Reichel Dolmatoff 1965; Rojas de Perdomo 1979; Allaire 1999). The earliest construc-tions at San Agust´n date back to 500 BC (Rojas de Perdomo 1979), but the highly ıdeveloped gold-working techniques, which inspired the Spanish thirst for gold and ledto the myth of El Dorado, generally can be dated as having arisen in the first millennium.The San Agust´n culture lasted until shortly before the arrival of the Spaniards. ı Although the Andes are associated in popular opinion with the Inca civilisation,historically the Incas played a relatively minor role. In the early part of the fifteenthcentury, they rose as a military power in southern Peru. Under Pachacuti Inca Yupanquithe southern highlands were conquered, and one by one the earlier Peruvian states,including powerful Chim´ , were toppled. After 1460 his son Tupac Inca conquered the unorthern highlands, as far as Quito in Ecuador, and after 1471 highland Bolivia andadjacent parts of Chile and Argentina were incorporated into the growing Inca empire.While most highland territories thus became Inca, the tropical forest remained out ofreach for the new conquerors. Unlike earlier military powers, the Incas were not content with looting new territory,but rather they organised and restructured it. Huayna Capac, who succeeded around1492, only added small parts to the empire, and withstood the first major assault on it,from the Chiriguanos in the southeast. When Huayna Capac died in 1527, his two sons,Huascar and Atahuallpa, fought over domination for five years, and when a small groupof Spaniards under Francisco Pizarro invaded Peru in 1532 they could profit from thedivisions caused by the wars of succession and from the disaffections among local elitesof nations recently conquered by the Incas. In addition, the Incas were greatly debilitatedby waves of European epidemic diseases, smallpox and measles, which had reached theAndes even before the advent of the Spaniards themselves.
  • 34. 1.3 Brief history of the region 9 From 1538 on Peru was firmly under the control of the Spanish colonialists, and itremained under their control inspite of uprisings and resistance during the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries. Resistance to Spanish colonial rule took several forms. Whilethe Spaniards had been able to conquer most of the Andean region rather rapidly, inthe monta˜ a, on the eastern slopes, the Incas held out for a long time, in fact until n1572, in their stronghold at Vilcabamba. While Europeans played the dominant rolein the highlands, it should not be thought that there were no Indian rebellions duringthe colonial and republican periods. Messianic movements (Ossio 1973) kept flaringup throughout the colonial and early republican periods. Only a few can be mentionedhere. In 1564 there was a revolt in the Ayacucho region of Peru, inspired by native religiousleaders, called Taki Onqoy (lit. ‘dancing sickness’, i.e. ‘dancing into a trance’), whichspread through large parts of central Peru and lasted seven years (Millones 1973, 1990).Around 1780 there was the famous uprising in southern Peru of Tupac Amaru II, aremote descendant of the Incas, which gained enormous peasant support before beingsquashed. The P´ ez in Colombia withstood the attacks by various Spanish conquistadores, in- acluding Belalc´ zar,1 but here also the Spaniards profited from conflicts between the avarious Indian nations. The Magdalena valley remained difficult to control for the colo-nial rulers until the nineteenth century. Just as the Incas had never been able to conquer the Mapuche in Chile, the Spanishconquistadores, after some initial successes, were unable to bring this Araucanian groupdown. Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Mapuche retained their inde-pendence and proved to be a formidable enemy, requiring repeated military expeditionsby the colonial and later by the republican powers. After new hostilities, in 1869 andagain in 1880, they were finally subdued or ‘pacified’ in 1882. They were forced to sharetheir limited agricultural area with intrusive settlers, but a majority has stayed in theheartland south of the Biob´o river. ı The independence from Spain of the Andean regions and the formation of newnation-states brought some changes for the Indian populations, but in many ways thepatterns established in the colonial period persisted. The overt rebellion against Spainstarted in 1810 at the two opposite ends of the Spanish empire – Caracas and BuenosAires – and spread from there to the central Andean regions. Bol´var in the north ıfirst liberated Venezuela, then Colombia and then Ecuador, with the help of Sucre.San Mart´n started in the Argentine and then liberated Chile. The two met in Peru, ıwhere the battle of Ayacucho in 1824 marked the effective end of Spanish rule in SouthAmerica.1 Benalcazar or Benalca¸ ar in the colonial sources. c
  • 35. 10 1 Introduction Even though Bol´var attempted to form larger nation-states, e.g. uniting Peru and ıBolivia, and uniting Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, the contours of what were tobecome the Spanish American republics became clearer as the Wars of Independencewere fought. The republics founded in the early nineteenth century have remained tilltoday, and have now developed strong national identities. It would be a mistake to thinkthat independence was inspired by the Indians or was beneficial to them. The oppositeis the case, for several reasons. To begin with, independence from Spain did not mean full autonomy. When theSpanish officials were gone, European bankers, traders and settlers stepped in. Thenineteenth century was a period of more intensive exploitation of a new series ofnatural resources in Latin America. The guano dug up along the Peruvian coast,the saltpetre mined in northern Chile and the rubber gathered in the upper Amazonbasin are examples of this. In many areas, the Indians were driven from their home-steads by new colonists or forced to participate in the new explorations under hardshipconditions. Further, the nationalism accompanying the forging of new nations was often translatedinto a desire for the cultural homogeneity of the citizenry. Public education, in Spanish,was extended into rural areas. Cities expanded, and urban norms and values were seenas signs of modernity. All of this meant that Indian lifestyles were depreciated andthreatened. An extreme result is the genocide perpetrated against the Indians of theArgentinian pampas under the command of General Roca (1878–82). Finally, independence had been fought for and won by elites associated with the importand export sectors of the colonial economies, who had been clamouring for tradingpossibilities with different nations, against the Spanish monopoly. These elites favouredthe breaking up of the traditional feudal landholding system, which had exploited theIndian work force but at the same time sheltered their culture, or rather a complexamalgam of their traditional culture and colonial patterns. Modernisation of agriculturewas accompanied by the increasing mobility of rural labourers, and hence by the splittingup of traditional Indian communities. These three factors still hold and help shape the relations between Indians and non-Indians in the Andes. In recent history organised Indian movements have allied them-selves with political movements, but major guerrilla activities such as Sendero Luminosoin Peru and FARC in Colombia are only peripherally related to Indian movements (cf. thecontributions in Eckstein 1989). 1.4 A brief overview of the different Andean countriesAll Andean countries have a native population which speaks several native languages.However, the number of languages that became extinct since 1500 probably exceeds
  • 36. 1.4 Brief overview of the Andean countries 11 Table 1.1 Percentage of Indian population in the different Andean countries (a fairly conservative estimate based on Instituto Indigenista Interamericano 1993) Total population Amerindian population Percentage Venezuela 21,300,000 315,815 1.48 Colombia 35,600,000 620,052 1.74 Ecuador 10,600,000 2,634,494 24.85 Peru 22,900,000 8,793,295 38.39 Bolivia 8,200,000 4,142,187 50.51 Chile 14,000,000 989,745 7.06 Argentina 33,900,000 372,996 1.10that of the languages still spoken. There is no longer a full coincidence between Indiandescent and the preservation of the native languages. Nor are languages always spokenin their original locations. The social developments of the second half of the twentiethcentury have induced many Indians to migrate to urban centres both within and outsidetheir original living areas. The countries involved in our study differ widely in the variety and relative impor-tance of native languages. Consider the figures for 1993 of the percentages of the Indianethnic groups of the total population in different countries (these figures refer to cultur-ally identifiable ethnic groups, not to speakers of Indian languages) in table 1.1. Bolivia,Ecuador and Peru differ clearly from Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Venezuela in thesize of their indigenous populations. Although overall figures have changed somewhatsince 1993, the percentages remain comparable. These figures are rather conservativeestimates; for individual countries, sometimes higher figures are given. With the excep-tion of Chile, all Andean countries mention Amerindian languages explicitly in theirconstitutions. Of course, these documents are no more than that, and explicit mention inthe constitution is no guarantee of the existence or otherwise of an indigenous language.However, these texts do reflect the self-perception of the political classes, at least, of thedifferent countries. Let us briefly look at these countries one by one. Venezuela. In so far as the region covered by this book is concerned, the Indianlanguages of Venezuela have been preserved mainly in the area to the west of LakeMaracaibo. In the Andes all native languages, including several isolates and small fam-ilies, are considered extinct. The 1999 Venezuelan constitution states in its article 9 that Spanish is the officiallanguage, while the indigenous languages are also for official use by the indigenouspeoples and must be respected throughout the Republic, since they constitute a cultural
  • 37. 12 1 Introductionheritage of the nation and of humanity at large.2 Article 100 provides for the recog-nition of cultural diversity and equality of all cultures that constitute the Venezuelanidentity.3 Finally, there is a transitory measure regulating the election of indigenous po-litical representatives, which includes the requirement that they speak their indigenouslanguages. Colombia. The Andean region of Colombia occupies the western, central and northernparts of the country, and is bordered by tropical lowlands in the east. The Andeanmountain ranges, which run from north to south, are separated by mighty river valleys andextensive forest areas, especially along the Pacific coast. At the arrival of the Europeansmany autonomous ethnic groups inhabited Andean Colombia, which has preserved partof its original multilingualism. The languages that have survived belong to differentfamilies and constitute linguistic islands in a largely Hispanicised country. The Indian groups of the Colombian Andes are known for their spirit of independenceand ethnic awareness. Their high level of organisation is rooted in the defence of theirrights to reserved areas (resguardos) inherited from the colonial period. Many of themencourage efforts to codify and preserve their languages as long as these are compatiblewith the interests of the community. The 1991 constitution of Colombia (with modifications in 1997) states in article 10that Spanish is the official language of Colombia while the languages and dialects of theethnic groups are also official in their territories. Education in communities with theirown linguistic traditions will be bilingual.4 Ecuador. Ecuador has one of the highest percentages of Indian population in SouthAmerica. It is mainly concentrated in the inter-Andean valleys and the Amazonian low-land to the east, referred to as the oriente in Ecuador. Some small communities inhabit thenorthern part of the forested region separating the Pacific Ocean from the Andean ranges.The majority of Ecuadorian Indians speak Quichua, the local variety of the Quechua lan-guage spoken in the Andean countries further south. Quichua is found in the entire high-land region except for its northern and southern extremities (in the provinces of Carchiand Loja). The Quechuanisation of highland Ecuador became complete during the colo-nial period when it replaced a multitude of local languages. At the same time Quichua wasintroduced in the Ecuadorian oriente, where it also gradually replaced some of the local2 El idioma oficial es el castellano. Los idiomas ind´genas tambi´ n son de uso oficial para los ı e pueblos ind´genas y deben ser respetados en todo el territorio de la Rep´ blica, por constituir ı u patrimonio cultural de la Naci´ n y de la humanidad. o3 Las culturas populares constitutivas de la venezolanidad gozan de atenci´ n especial, recono- o ci´ ndose y respet´ ndose la interculturalidad bajo el principio de igualdad de las culturas. e a4 El castellano es el idioma oficial de Colombia. Las lenguas y dialectos de los grupos etnicos ´ son tambi´ n oficiales en sus territorios. La ense˜ anza que se imparta en las comunidades con e n tradiciones ling¨ ´sticas propias ser´ biling¨ e. uı a u
  • 38. 1.4 Brief overview of the Andean countries 13languages. Varese (1983) estimated the Indian population of the Ecuadorian oriente at be-tween 30,703 (minimum) and 58,353 (maximum). The Abya–Yala cultural organisationon its website Peoples of Ecuador ( a figure of over a 100,000. Article 1 of the 1998 constitution of Ecuador perhaps goes furthest in declaring thatthe state respects and stimulates the development of all the Ecuadorian languages. WhileSpanish is the official language, Quechua, Shuar and the other ancestral languages areto be used officially for the indigenous peoples.5 Article 23 states that every person hasthe right to be informed in her or his mother tongue, of proceedings against her or him.6Article 69, finally, guarantees a form of bilingual education in which the indigenouslanguage is the principal one and Spanish the language for intercultural relations.7 Peru. Like Ecuador, Peru has an Indian population of several millions concentratedmainly in the Andes. The Peruvian eastern lowlands (selva) and the foothills (monta˜ a) nseparating them from the Andean highlands are inhabited by a substantial number ofethnic groups. Their number has been estimated between 200,000 and 220,850 (Varese1983). More recent estimates (Pozzi-Escot 1998) are slightly higher, but the number ofspeakers of lowland languages of five years and older has been calculated at 130,803by Chirinos Rivera (2001). The Peruvian coast harbours several communities that havenative American roots but have lost their language. The Andean highlands are dominated by the presence of two languages, Quechua andAymara. Peruvian Quechua shows a considerable amount of internal dialect diversity.The number of Quechua speakers in Peru has been calculated at 4,402,023 (Cerr´ n- oPalomino 1987a). A recent estimate by Chirinos Rivera (2001), based on the nationalcensus of 1993, is much lower, however: 3,199,474 speakers of five years and older.Aymara is mainly confined to the southern departments of Puno, Moquegua and Tacnaand has around 350,000 speakers in Peru. It has 412,215 speakers of five years and olderaccording to Chirinos Rivera. Article 48 of the 1993 Peruvian constitution talks of official languages in the plural,declaring these to be Spanish and, in those zones where they are dominant, Quechua,Aymara and the other aboriginal languages.8 In the general motivation for the 1993 con-stitution it is mentioned that Peru is to be conceived of as a multiethnic and multicultural5 El Estado respeta y estimula el desarrollo de todas las lenguas de los ecuatorianos. El castellano es el idioma oficial. El quichua, el shuar y los dem´ s idiomas ancestrales son de uso oficial para a los pueblos ind´genas, en los t´ rminos que fija la ley. ı e6 Toda persona tendr´ el derecho a ser oportuna y debidamente informada, en su lengua materna, a de las acciones iniciadas en su contra.7 El estado garantizar´ el sistema de educaci´ n intercultural biling¨ e; en el se utilizar´ como lengua a o u ´ a principal la de la cultura respectiva, y el castellano como idioma de relaci´ n intercultural. o8 Son idiomas oficiales el castellano y, en las zonas donde predominen, tambi´ n lo son el quechua, e el aimara y las dem´ s lenguas abor´genes, seg´ n la ley. a ı u
  • 39. 14 1 Introductioncountry, where all citizens have the right to express themselves in their own languagebefore any authority.9 Bolivia. The Bolivian highland region is again characterised by the dominance ofQuechua and Aymara. Only small pockets of speakers of other highland languagesremain. In the lowlands surrounding the northern edge of the Andean high plateau thereis a wide array of small, genetically isolated languages. The number of Quechua speakers in Bolivia is estimated at 2,194,099 on the basisof the 1992 census figures, that of Aymara speakers at 1,503,754 (Alb´ 1995, I: 19). oSpeakers of the lowland languages are estimated at more than 96,000 (Alb´ 1995, oI: 19). The 1967 constitution of Bolivia, with modifications dating from 1994, guaranteesin article 171 the rights of the indigenous peoples, including those concerning theiridentity, values, languages and customs, and institutions.10 Chile. The Mapuche people, who constitute the majority of the Chilean indigenouspopulation, are mainly concentrated in the region called La Araucan´a in the south of ıthat country. Originally, they inhabited most of the central and southern mainland partsof Chile, including the island of Chilo´ , but centuries of war and colonising pressure ehave reduced their territorial space. Although there may be a million people of Mapuchedescent, only an estimated 40 per cent continue to speak the language. There are noreliable figures as to the actual number of speakers, however. In addition to Mapucheonly a few other native languages are found in the northern and southern extremities ofthe country. The current Chilean constitution makes no reference, as far as we could establish, tolanguage and culture, indigenous or not. This may reflect the fact that Chileans tend notto perceive themselves as a partly Amerindian nation. Argentina. The northwestern part of Argentina is inhabited by Indians and mestizosbelonging to the Andean cultural sphere. Many of them speak Quechua or did so in thepast. The Gran Chaco, to the east of the northern Argentinian Andes, is inhabited bythe Tupi–Guaran´ Chiriguano and several other important indigenous groups speaking ıGuaicuruan and Matacoan languages. Araucanian (Mapuche) is the dominant Indianlanguage in the south and southwest of Argentinia. Other groups in Patagonia and Tierradel Fuego are extinct or nearly so. In the central and western part of the country all 9 La primera visi´ n que tiene el Proyecto concibe al Per´ como pa´s pluri´ tnico y pluricultural; en o u ı e consideraci´ n a ello el Proyecto comienza estableciendo por ejemplo, que todos los peruanos o tienen el derecho a expresarse en su propio idioma, no solamente en castellano, sino tambi´ n en e quechua o en aymara, ante cualquier autoridad.10 Se reconocen, respetan y protegen en el marco de la ley, los derechos sociales, econ´ micoso y culturales de los pueblos ind´genas que habitan en el territorio nacional, especialmente los ı relativos a sus tierras comunitarias de origen garantizando del uso y aprovechamiento sostenible de los recursos naturales, a su identidad, valores, lenguas y costumbres e instituciones.
  • 40. 1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages 15aboriginal Indian languages have disappeared. Indians or people of local indigenousdescent number several hundred thousand in Argentina. Article 75 of the 1994 constitution of Argentina states that Congress must recognisethe ethnic and cultural pre-existence of the Argentinian indigenous peoples, andguarantee the respect for their identity and right to bilingual and intercultural education.11The term ‘pre-existence’ presumably refers to the Argentinian self-perception as a non-Indian immigrant nation. 1.5 History of the study of the Andean languagesLittle if anything is known about linguistics in the preconquest era, although theremay have been awareness of linguistic differences in the Inca empire. The colonialera, in which missionary priests started recording the richness of the Indian linguisticheritage, is well worth describing in some detail. The nineteenth century is dominatedby laymen: primarily European scholars, often with an archaeological and historicalinterest. In the twentieth century we find a stronger American presence, in addition tothe emergence of groups of researchers in the different Andean countries themselves.The recent period shows several new developments: the participation of speakers ofnative languages in the research, the widening concern for language use, the concernabout language endangerment and the role of multilingualism in Andean society. We will describe the developments in these periods in sequence, first looking at theexternal history of language study in each period, and then consider the treatment of aparticular grammatical construction. Relative clauses in Quechua are used as an exampleto illustrate different phases in the thinking about Andean languages: they are complexand unfamiliar enough to have posed a challenge for different generations of outsidescholars. 1.5.1 The colonial periodThe first data on any Andean language gathered by an outsider, as far as we know, consistof vocabulary noted down by Pigafetta, as Vocables Des G´ antz Pathagoniens. Antonio ede Pigafetta accompanied Fernando de Magalh˜ es (Magellan) on his voyage around athe world between 1519 and 1522 (Pigafetta 1956: 177 ff ). The list of words includesbody parts, some terms referring to social status (her ‘chief’) and the physical universe.No grammatical items were recorded, except chen [ˇ en] ‘us’. The list reveals only a csuperficial dialogue context and probably reflects some profound misunderstandings.Contacts did not lead to immediate colonisation. This was different, of course, when11 Reconocer la preexistencia etnica y cultural de los pueblos ind´genas argentinos. Garantizar el ´ ı respeto a su identidad y el derecho a una educaci´ n biling¨ e e intercultural . . . o u
  • 41. 16 1 Introduction Table 1.2 Early grammars of Andean languages (arranged from north to south) Chibcha 1609 Bernardo de Lugo Mochica 1644 Fernando de la Carrera Quechua (Inca) 1560 Domingo de Santo Tom´ s a 1607 Diego Gonz´ lez Holgu´n a ı Aymara 1603 Ludovico Bertonio Morocosi (Mojo) 1699 Anonymous Jesuit Mapuche 1606 Luis de Valdivia Allentiac 1607 Luis de Valdivia Millcayac 1607 Luis de Valdiviathe Andes were taken from the north by Spanish bands of conquistadores in the 1530s.With the conquistadores came the priests. From the very beginning of the European presence in South America Indian languageswere studied and documented by Roman Catholic missionaries. Some of the early lin-guistic descriptions written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are admirablyaccurate for the time. They contain a wealth of information, which is particularly valu-able when placed in the interpretative context of recent findings. Rowe (1974) calculatesthat by 1700 grammars of 21 Amerindian languages had been published, 19 of whichdealt with languages of Mexico and South America. In addition, we find a large num-ber of vocabularies, catechisms, etc. Some of the first grammars written for Andeanlanguages are listed in table 1.2. The early grammars had an ecclesiastical use, and this meant that they were couchedin a vocabulary a priest could understand. Grammatical descriptions often ‘reduced’grammars to the Latin mould. Most missionaries used the model developed by theSpanish grammarian Antonio de Nebrija in his Introductiones Latinae (c.1488); seeD¨ mmler (1997). u Still, we should not underestimate the achievement of early colonial grammarians.First of all, they were writing at a time when very few languages had been describedyet in Europe. Fray Domingo de Santo Tom´ s’s (1560a) grammar of Quechua antedates athe first grammars of German (1573) and of English (1586). Second, we find, next toor subsequent to fumbling first efforts, early seventeenth-century masterpieces, still un-surpassed, of grammatical description and lexicographic exploration. Examples includeBertonio (1603a, b) on Aymara, Valdivia (1606) on Mapuche and Gonz´ lez Holgu´n a ı(1607) on Quechua. An adequate assessment of their intellectual background and insightsinto the organisation of grammar is still lacking, even though a number of studies arefilling the gap (Su´ rez Roca 1992; Troiani 1995; Zimmermann 1997; Dedenbach-Salazar a
  • 42. 1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages 17S´ enz and Crickmay 1999; Nowak 1999; Zwartjes 2000). The work of Herv´ s (Herv´ s y a a aPanduro 1784, 1800–5) reflects the detailed knowledge which Jesuits and missionariesof other congregations had in the eighteenth century of the linguistic situation in SouthAmerica. We will illustrate the evolution of the grammatical tradition by using the example ofthe treatment of Quechua relative clauses. Quechua relative clauses are generally formedwith nominalising particles. When the subject is relativised, -q is used (examples aregiven from the Cuzco variety): (1) kay-man hamu-q runa ruwa-nqa this-AL come-AG man do-3S.F ‘The man who comes here will do it.’The relative clause precedes the antecedent, and the relativised element is generally notexpressed in the clause itself; cf. Weber (1983, 1989), Cole et al. (1982), Lefebvre andMuysken (1982, 1988). In the Central Peruvian varieties the relative clause generallyfollows the antecedent; if it precedes the antecedent, it is often interpreted generically. When a non-subject is relativised, a different nominalising particle, such as -sqa, isused: (2) qaynunˇ aw riku-sqa-yki runa ruwa-nqa-n c yesterday see-SN-2S man do-3S.F-AF ‘The man you saw yesterday will do it.’ The grammars by Santo Tom´ s (1560a) and Gonz´ lez Holgu´n (1607) illustrate a a ıthe early tradition. The unfamiliar features of Quechua relative clauses, such as thesubject/non-subject distinction, their position and the absence of tense marking, posed aconsiderable challenge for Spanish priests. Santo Tom´ s (1560a) does not discuss nom- ainalising particles in relation with relative clauses. Rather, he introduces a periphrasticconstruction in his fifteenth chapter (‘Of relatives’), as in (3) (his spelling): (3) Pedro pori-rca, pay-pas, o chay-pas, o quiquin-pas, micu-rca Pedro walk-PA.3S he-AD or that-AD or self-AD eat-PA.3S ‘Pedro walked, the same ate.’ (Pedro anduvo, el cual comi´ .) oThis coordinate construction occurs in Quechua, but it is not the most common way toform a relative. Gonz´ lez Holgu´n’s (1607) grammar constitutes a considerable improvement. It is a ınoted that the primary way of forming relative clauses is with a participle and without arelative pronoun, as in (1), but then Gonz´ lez Holguin goes on to say that a clearer and amore elegant way (oraci´ n muy clara y elegante) exists to express the same meaning, as o
  • 43. 18 1 Introductionin (4), involving the question word pi ‘who’, which again recalls the European models(original spelling): (4) Dios-pa gracia-n-pac pi-ch camari-cu-n, o pi-pas camari-cu-n chay-ca usachi-cu-nca-tac-mi God-G grace-3P-B who-DU prepare-RF-3S or who-AD prepare-RF-3S that-TO attain-RF-3S.F-EM-AF ‘Whoever prepares himself for God’s grace, that person will certainly attain it.’Gonz´ lez Holgu´n also mentions a third way of forming relatives, corresponding to a ıSanto Tom´ s’s example (3). a An admirably detailed and generally faithful account of the language is coupledwith Jesuit certainty and missionary zeal, and with a desire to cultivate the language(somewhat along the lines of Latin). This cultivation of Quechua was part of Spanishcolonial policy (see chapters 3 and 7). University chairs were established for Quechuaand Aymara at the University of San Marcos in Lima, for Quechua in Quito and forMuisca in Santaf´ de Bogot´ . e a Half a century later we find the first grammar of Quechua in which different varietiesare explicitly treated (Torres Rubio 1619), and this coincides with the beginning of thecomparative tradition in Andean language studies, which will be the subject of the finalsections of this chapter. 1.5.2 The nineteenth centuryThe opening up of Latin America to other European nations after independence wasaccompanied by a new type of scholar dedicated to the languages of the Andes. Wilhelmvon Humboldt had already paid attention to languages such as Quechua, basing himselfon seventeenth- and eighteenth-century sources (1836, 1971). He saw the Quechuarelative clauses in an evolutionary perspective, in a fashion typical of nineteenth-centuryhistoricist thought. The nominalised participles, as in (1) and (2), reflect an early, moreprimitive phase in Quechua language and culture; the relative clauses involving questionwords as in (4) correspond to the higher attainments of Inca civilisation. The same tendency to view Andean culture patterns in terms of the Great Civilisationsis found in Ernst Middendorf, a curious but highly impressive figure who arrived in Peruas a physician in 1855, twenty-five years old. He spent a total of twenty-five years in thecountry, in three extended periods, first as a physician in Lima and then as a hacendado,a landowner, in the Cuzco region. Middendorf combined the edition of surviving textsin a number of Andean languages with actual fieldwork. In his Quechua grammar(1890a, 1970) the relatives formed through coordination, (3), and those formed with a
  • 44. 1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages 19question word, (4), move to the second plan. The crucial subject (1)/non-subject(2) distinction is stated clearly for the first time. For the first time as well we find an explicit discussion of possible Spanish influenceon the Andean languages: are relative clauses formed with a question word the resultof Spanish grammatical influence? Middendorf considers the question unanswerable,and indeed the issue is highly complex (see, for instance, Lefebvre 1984; Appel andMuysken 1987: 161), since already in the earliest Quechua sources we find a specialtype of correlative formed with question words, but no ordinary relative clauses formedthis way. 1.5.3 Contemporary Andean linguisticsParticularly after the Second World War, the study of Andean languages underwent anew upsurge, stimulated by linguists from the United States and Europe, both secularand evangelist. The activities of the early missionary grammarians have received amodern continuation in the work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL; in Spanish:Instituto Ling¨ ´stico de Verano, ILV), whose members study the native Indian languages uıfor purposes of evangelisation. SIL members have been active in most South Americancountries. Two typical examples of post-Second World War descriptive linguistics are Yokoyama(1951) and Levinsohn (1976). In contrast with the notionally based grammars of tra-ditional and nineteenth-century linguists, these scholars focus on formal patterns andresemblances. Yokoyama discusses relative clauses in Quechua in terms of their con-stituent morphemes, going through some of the different uses of a suffix such as -sqa,before coming up with some examples of a relative clause. Levinsohn (1976), working in the framework of tagmemics, sets up numerical for-mulas for different verb and suffix combinations. We get examples such as (5a), whichcan be glossed as (5b): (5) a. Vb 1331.1 – H:nighua b. ni-g-wa say-AG-C ‘with the one who says’While the formula in (5a) may have made it possible for the author to describe the lan-guage economically and consistently, for outsiders it is difficult to gain much informationfrom it without a lot of puzzle work. Work in more contemporary grammatical frame-works such as Lefebvre and Muysken’s (1988) analysis, couched in the Governmentand Binding model, while providing more examples, similarly has proven little moreaccessible.
  • 45. 20 1 Introduction In work done by scholars from the Andean countries often a more tradition-based,practical perspective is adopted. 1.6 Sources for the study of the languages of the AndesLinguistic fieldwork is, of course, the principal source of information concerning thelanguages presently spoken. Cases where this type of research is particularly urgent arenumerous. Notwithstanding its essential importance, field research cannot answer allthe questions relevant to the past and present state of the South American languages.Manuscripts with word lists, travel accounts and recordings in public archives or libraries,or in private possession, may provide data concerning extinct languages and earlier stagesof living languages. As we have said before, early Spanish grammarians contributed substantially to ourknowledge of native American languages, and some of them played a role in effortstowards the standardisation of the Quechua language to suit its use as an instrument ofevangelisation. Among these was the team that translated the Doctrina Christiana andthe Catechism into Quechua following the Third Lima Council of 1583. They designed aunified, phonologically simple version of Quechua in which the regional differences wereto some extent attenuated (Cerr´ n-Palomino 1987b: 84–90). Others, such as Bertonio and oGonz´ lez Holgu´n, wrote grammars and dictionaries (of Aymara and Cuzco Quechua, a ırespectively) considered among the classics of renaissance linguistic description. How-ever, they too focused their attention mainly upon those languages considered usefulfor purposes of colonisation and evangelisation. When unimportant from a numericalpoint of view, languages were mostly left unrecorded, or the grammars, dictionariesand catechisms dedicated to them remained in single manuscript versions. Many ofthese subsequently became lost. One manuscript grammar that fortunately has sur-vived is de la Mata (1748), kept in the British Library in London. It is a grammarof the Chol´ n language spoken until recently in the Huallaga valley in the Peruvian odepartment of San Mart´n. However, the previous existence of Barzana’s grammar (pub- ılished in 1590; see Brinton 1891: 170) of the Diaguita or Kak´ n language, once spoken ain what is now northwestern Argentina and northern Chile, is only known to us froman indirect source. Most unfortunately, there is no grammatical nor lexical informationon this language apart from a substantial number of place names and a few terms inlocal use. Not until shortly before the end of Spanish colonial presence in the Andean region, dowe find a renewed interest in local linguistic and cultural conditions. A remarkable figurerepresenting this current, inspired by the European Enlightenment, is Baltasar JaimeMart´nez Compa˜ on, who collected word lists of the native languages still spoken about ı n´1780 in the northern Peruvian coastal and sierra regions (Mart´nez Compa˜ on 1985). ı n´Mart´nez Compa˜ on stood at the beginning of a tradition of systematically collecting ı n´
  • 46. 1.6 Sources for study 21data for a variety of Amerindian languages that lasted through the nineteenth and partof the twentieth centuries. The analysis of texts in native languages collected for different purposes, publishedand unpublished, constitutes another promising field. Much work remains to be done inthis area. Several areas in South America, especially in the Andes, exhibit an ancient agriculturaltradition rooted in the pre-Columbian and early colonial past but have lost their originallanguages. In such areas, the study of toponymy can provide information about thelinguistic situation as it was in early postconquest times. Such an undertaking can helpnot only to identify the languages formerly spoken in a particular area, but also to providean indication of their territorial extension at the time before they became extinct. Thistype of research has been carried out in recent years in relation to the coast and sierraof northern Peru (Torero 1986, 1989; Adelaar 1988, 1999). As regards the issue of extinction, a precaution is in order. Rediscoveries of languagesthought extinct are not unusual. Elderly people may remember a language whereas theyounger generation is hardly aware that it ever existed. Chol´ n, for instance, was found oto be still in use with a few individuals in the Peruvian Huallaga valley (Barbira 1979,cited in Cerr´ n-Palomino 1987a), although it is probably extinct now. Van de Kerke o(1998, 2000) found a number of speakers of Leco, a language on the slopes of the Andesin Bolivia that had been considered extinct as well. Several surveys dealing with the present-day situation of the native languages in theSouth American countries have provided data for this book. For Colombia the principalsources are publications of the Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´genes ı(CCELA) of the Universidad de Los Andes and Gonz´ lez and Rodr´guez (2000). For a ıboth Colombia and Ecuador a basic source are publications of the Summer Institute ofLinguistics. Torero (1974) and Cerr´ n Palomino (1987a) are important reference works ofor Quechua. For Aymara there is Hardman et al. (1988), and Cerr´ n Palomino (2000). oFor Chile the main reference for Mapuche is Salas (1992a). The Argentinian situation istreated in Klein (1985) and Censabella (1999); as far as Patagonia and Tierra del Fuegoare concerned, a basic source is Clairis (1985a). With respect to the Amazon area, important compilations have appeared, such asKey (1979), Pottier (1983), Klein and Stark (1985a), Derbyshire and Pullum (1986,1990, 1991, 1998), Doris L. Payne (1990a), Queixal´ s and Renault-Lescure (2000) and oDixon and Aikhenvald (2000). Loukotka (1968), Tovar and Larrucea de Tovar (1984),Migliazza and Campbell (1988), Campbell (1997) and Fabre (1998) provide the mostcomplete recent bibliographical data. These books give a fairly complete listing of SouthAmerica’s native languages, accompanied by remarks concerning existing classificatoryproposals. Their aim is not to contribute a reasoned classification in itself. The Atlasof the World’s Languages (Moseley and Asher 1994), with a contribution by Kaufman,provides additional information.
  • 47. 22 1 Introduction 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languagesSouth America has rightly been called ‘the least known continent’ (Lyon 1974). Thisstatement holds true, in particular, when applied to the genetic relationships of thenative languages of its western half. Much remains to be done before a comprehensiveclassification can be established of the numerous native languages spoken, or oncespoken, in the Andes and in the pre-Andean lowlands. Genetically isolated languagesand small language families predominate in the area. Not the number of languages,but rather the number of irreducible genetic units constitutes its most striking feature.The resulting impression of extreme linguistic diversity is partly due to insufficientdocumentation, but in cases where good data are available the situation seems to beno less complex. The linguistic situation in the Andes is comparable in many waysto that in other parts of the Americas, except for the circumstance that maybe morelanguages became extinct here during the last five centuries than anywhere else on thecontinent. In a majority of cases, such languages have remained undocumented. Theirextinction implies the loss of just as many potential genetic links between the languagesstill in use. Consequently, some of the best-known languages of the Andean region, suchas Araucanian or Mochica, do not form part of any genetic grouping that could meetwith the consensus of linguistic scholarship. The same holds true for ‘shallow’ geneticunits such as Quechua, a conglomerate of closely related dialects, and Aymaran (alsoknown as Aru or Jaqi), the language family that includes Aymara as its most importantrepresentative. The existence in South America of a number of large genetic groupings includingmany widely scattered individual languages has been known for a long time. They in-clude the Arawakan, Cariban, Chibchan and Tupi linguistic stocks. All four of themare represented in the Andes, in the pre-Andean lowlands or in both. However, withthe exception of Chibchan in the northern Andes, they all occupy a predominant placeelsewhere in South America. There have been several attempts to link linguistic isolatesof the eastern Andean slopes to one of the larger stocks just mentioned, but in most caseswithout lasting success. The genetic status of several languages that were once tenta-tively classified as Arawakan or Chibchan will have to be reconsidered. The Amueshalanguage of the central Peruvian forest slopes constitutes a remarkable exception to this.Its supposed membership of the Arawakan family was long considered controversial,but its close genetic relationship with other Arawakan languages of the Pre-Andinesubgroup has now become established beyond reasonable doubt (Wise 1976). Like in North America, the diversity of languages seems to have been the greatestalong the mountainous spine on the Pacific side of the continent, which may also haveconstituted the scene of the earliest wave of migrations. Early colonial observers, suchas Bibar (1558), Cieza de Le´ n (1553), Cobo (1653) and Sim´ n ([1626] 1882–1892, o oII: 116, 284; cited in P´ rez de Barradas 1955: 17–19) speak of an amazing variety e
  • 48. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 23of languages in what is now Colombia, Peru and northern Chile. It is often not clear,however, whether the languages referred to were actually different languages or merelylocal varieties of more widespread languages. When Sim´ n, for instance, speaks of the onumerous languages used in the highlands surrounding Santaf´ de Bogot´ and Tunja e ain New Granada (present-day Colombia), he may have been referring to dialects of theprevailing Muisca and Duit languages with the possible inclusion of some unrelatedneighbouring idiomatic groups. On the other hand, the linguistic variety in the northernPeruvian bishopric of Trujillo observed by Garcilaso de la Vega (Royal Commentariesof the Incas, 1609, Book VII, chapter 3) turned out to be quite real. Except for Mochica,these languages remained virtually without record throughout the colonial period andhardly received any attention until their extinction at a relatively recent date. The cultural and political developments that took place in the Andes have favoured thespread of a few languages, i.e. Quechua, Aymara and Araucanian, at the cost of scoresof local languages originally present in the area. Their expansion was initiated beforethe establishment of the Inca empire and the European invasion. In quite a few cases, thelocal languages did not disappear before the end of the colonial period. A few of themremained vital well into the twentieth century. In addition to the expansion of the majornative languages, the rapid spread of Spanish also contributed to further reducing thecomplexity of the linguistic situation in the Andes. Spanish, for instance, has directlyreplaced Mochica and several other languages on the northern Peruvian coast as well asin its mountainous hinterland. The disappearance without record of so many potential relatives has doubtlessly con-tributed to the apparent genetic isolation of the languages still spoken. Tenacious effortsto relate some of the surviving languages of the area to each other, rather than con-sider them within the framework of more comprehensive genetic constructs, may havecontributed to further obscuring the situation. This holds true, in particular, for the twoIndian languages most widely spoken in the Andes, Quechua and Aymara. After centuries of increasing uniformisation, considerable language diversity, as mayonce have existed everywhere in the Andes, is still found nowadays on the eastern slopesalong the upper reaches of the Amazonian rivers. Lowland Bolivia and eastern Ecuador,as well as the Colombian and Peruvian Amazonian regions adjacent to Ecuador, aretypical areas in this respect. 1.7.1 History of classificatory effortsOpinions about the origin of the South American Indians and their languages date backto the early years of European presence on the continent. If we leave aside the initialpostdiscovery belief that America was part of Asia, Acosta in his Historia natural y moralde las Indias (Natural and Moral History of the Indies; 1590, Book I, chapters 20–4) wasprobably the first to intuitively sense the way in which the ancestors of America’s Indian
  • 49. 24 1 Introductionpopulation had entered the New World in times long gone. He assumed that they camemainly over land, crossing estuaries whenever necessary, in small bands and withoutthe intention of peopling a new continent. Acosta also indicated the areas where thiscould have taken place: in the Arctic regions, where the boundaries of the Old and NewWorld had not yet been discovered by his contemporaries. It was precisely the diversityof nations and languages found throughout the Americas that incited Acosta to rejectprevalent theories about shipwrecks and maritime expeditions organised by historicallyknown peoples. Quite correctly, he predicted that such diversity must have taken a longtime to develop. In the linguistic domain, Cobo in his Historia del Nuevo Mundo (History of the NewWorld; 1653, Book XI, chapter 10) assigned a common origin to Quechua and Aymara,the two predominant languages in the Inca empire, on account of their being remarkablysimilar (cf. Mannheim 1985b, 1991). He compared their relationship to that of Spanishand Italian, both descendants from Latin. By doing so, Cobo underestimated the powerof long-term contacts between two languages sharing a common geographic and culturalspace, a fact of which he was well aware nevertheless. As he posited the genetic unityof Quechua and Aymara, Cobo also laid the foundations for a debate bound to continueuntil the present. In the eighteenth century, as a result of expanding missionary activity, the awarenessgrew that the languages of many South American ethnic groups could be reduced to afew comprehensive genetic units. Missionaries were well informed about the existenceof a multitude of tribes speaking different languages in the South American lowlands.Among them, the Italian Gilij (1780–4) drew the contours of several genetic groupingsof lasting validity, including Arawakan (still referred to as Maipuran at that time) andCariban (Hoff 1968). Another representative of the church, the abbot Herv´ s (1784, a1800–5), published a substantial amount of data, collected from, among others, Jesuitmissionaries residing in Europe after their expulsion from the Spanish American domainsin 1767. When pointing out the fact that the Omagua of the Upper Amazon valleyand the Guaran´ of the Paraguayan missions spoke closely related languages, despite ıgeographic separation and different environments, Herv´ s showed himself to be aware aof the existence of a Tupi–Guaran´ linguistic family. Herv´ s refers to information from ı aGilij, among others, when assigning a number of languages to the Maipuran or Arawakanfamily. Among them is the language of the Achagua people of the Colombian llanos‘plains’, of whose good disposition towards Spanish rule and religion Herv´ s speaks ahighly. On the other hand, his concept of the existence of a Cariban language familyseemed to be partly inspired by the idea that the Caribs did not easily submit to Spanishcolonial domination. Arawakan nations who resisted colonisation efforts were classifiedas Cariban in company with a number of unsubjugated North American tribes. Herv´ s aheld an interesting concept of language families. If several languages appeared to be
  • 50. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 25related, one of them was assigned the status of lengua matriz (‘mother language’ or‘principal language’), from which the others, by extension, were derived. This approachmust be viewed in relation to the necessity felt at that time to select a limited number oflanguages for the purpose of evangelisation carried out among a much larger number oflinguistic groups. There is a definite contrast between the amount of information provided by Herv´ s aconcerning the Andes and the Pacific coast on one hand and the Amazonian lowlands onthe other. The latter is remarkably accurate and full of detail; the former exhibits manylacunae, particularly in the sphere of the minor languages spoken within the limits ofthe former Inca empire. As it appears, the availability of Quechua as a vehicle usedfor evangelising purposes made these languages less interesting in the opinion of themissionaries and information concerning them was not passed on systematically. It mayexplain why languages such as Culli, Sechura and Tall´ n, spoken until the nineteenth acentury in the northern Peruvian coastal plains and highlands, and the Pre-Quechuanlanguages of highland Ecuador received almost no attention before they eventuallybecame extinct. The nineteenth century marks a renewed interest in native American linguistics andethnography. In the southern half of the Andean region, including the adjacent lowlands,the French traveller and natural scientist d’Orbigny recorded word lists and ethnographicinformation on many Indian groups (d’Orbigny 1839). His information on the lowlandBolivian tribes brought together in the Chiquitos and Moxos missions is particularlyvaluable. D’Orbigny’s classification of Indian nations is still primarily based on ethno-graphic and geographic rather than on linguistic considerations, however. Efforts towards a genetically based classification of the South American languagesgained importance during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Brinton publishedThe American Race (1891), a survey of the native American peoples with a strongemphasis on linguistic classification. Almost simultaneously, Uhle (1890) proposed theexistence of a Chibchan family, and Middendorf (1890–2) published his monumentalwork on the indigenous languages of Peru, in which he also discusses the nature of therelationship between Quechua and Aymara. Henceforth, two types of contributions must be distinguished, those aiming at overallclassifications meant to include all documented South American languages, or, at theleast, as many of them as possible, and those aiming at establishing genetic links betweenspecific languages or language families. Both activities have been going on, often withoutmuch mutual feedback. Proposals concerning genetic relations involving native Andeanlanguages have been numerous and often contradictory. Here they will be dealt withvery selectively. We will first enumerate and discuss some of the proposed classifications. Propos-als concerning individual languages or language families will be treated subsequently.
  • 51. 26 1 IntroductionClassifications are termed conservative if their authors refrain from including geneticunits of which the internal cohesion is still open to doubt. Virtually no classifications areentirely consistent in this respect. Two classifications stand at the conservative end ofthe scale, Loukotka (1968), with 117 independent units for all of South America and theCaribbean islands, and Kaufman (1990), with 118. At the other end we find Greenberg(1987) with one comprehensive Amerind phylum thought to include all the native lan-guages of South and Central America, the Caribbean and most of North America aswell. Conservative classifications do not necessarily imply a rejection of possible com-prehensive groupings, as their authors explicitly indicate, but they are meant to providea list of firmly established ‘shallow’ language families, which can be used in furtherrearrangements. One of the earliest overall classifications of the South American languages, apart fromBrinton’s, is that of Chamberlain (1913). It is a conservative classification containing 84groups, most of which are represented in the Andes and the eastern foothills. The lowernumber of units in relation to, for instance, Loukotka’s classification is due to the factthat many languages and small families were still absent from Chamberlain’s account. In Rivet’s classification of the South American and Caribbean languages, which ap-peared in Meillet and Cohen’s well-known handbook Les langues du monde (1924),some reductions in the number of groups can be observed (to a total of 77; expanded to108 in the revised edition of 1952). These reductions reflect Rivet’s comparative viewsand concern, in particular, the Chibchan language family, to which several groups previ-ously thought independent had been added. Languages thus classified as Chibchan wereAndaqu´, the Barbacoan languages (Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer), the Coconucan ılanguages (including Guambiano), the Paniquitan languages (including P´ ez), Cof´ n a aand Cuna. Rivet also proposed a subgroup consisting of Barbacoan, Cuna and the CostaRican groups Guatuso and Talamancan (the latter comprising all Costa Rican languagesexcept Guatuso). Further innovations of Rivet’s classification concern the inclusion ofthe Tacanan family of northern Bolivia within Arawakan and the inclusion of Uruanand Puquina (wrongly considered a unit) within that same family. Of these proposalsonly the classification of Cuna as a member of the Chibchan family became generallyaccepted. Mason’s contribution to the Handbook of South American Indians (1950) containsan extensive and very useful discussion of previous classificatory efforts. It also bringsa further reduction of the number of language families. Proposals to establish newgroupings are partly taken from other authors. For the Chibchan family and its possibleexpansions (classified as Chibchan, probably Chibchan, or doubtful), Jij´ n y Caama˜ o o n(1940–5) is the main source, although the latter’s proposals are presented with much re-serve. Following up suggestions of Rivet, Harrington (1944) and Jij´ n y Caama˜ o, Mason o ngroups the Huitotoan, Boran and Zaparoan languages of the Colombian, Ecuadoreanand northern Peruvian lowlands with Tupi–Guaran´. Two innovations in Mason’s ı
  • 52. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 27classification are the terms Kechumaran and Ataguitan, the former referring to a ge-netic grouping consisting of Quechua and Aymara and the latter bringing together theAtacame˜ o, Diaguita and Humahuaca languages of northern Argentina and northern nChile. Mason presents the proposed Ataguitan grouping with much hesitation. It hasnever gained much support, in particular, because the Diaguita and Humahuaca groupsare virtually undocumented. In contrast, Mason considers Kechumaran ‘yet unprovedbut highly probable’ (again referring to Jij´ n y Caama˜ o’s work). Subsequently, the term o nhas become widely used in the alternative spelling Quechumaran. It is remarkable thatMason explicity excludes the Cauqui or Jaqaru language from this grouping, althoughCauqui was already thought (and is now known) to be closely related to Aymara. McQuown’s classification (1955) follows Mason’s in several respects, including theacceptance of the Ataguitan and Quechumaran groupings, which he considers less con-vincing than Mason does (1955: 562), the unjustified exclusion of Cauqui and the ex-panded Tupi–Guaran´. On the other hand, it is a conservative classification since it allows ıfor no less than 629 unclassified languages in South America in addition to 12 large fam-ilies and 38 minor families. Characteristic of McQuown’s contribution is an attempt toenumerate and locate on maps all the native Latin American languages ever mentionedin literature (1820 for all Latin America). Although doubtlessly useful, McQuown’s lan-guage list contains many items which are geographic denominations rather than languagenames. This is the case, in particular, of the Quechua-dominated middle Andean region,where names of towns, provinces and valleys figure as just as many separate languages.This procedure apparently rests on the assumption that Quechua was introduced at arecent stage in most places where it is now spoken (or known to have been spoken),and that in each case a different language must underlie it. The linguistic parcelling thatresults from it is merely hypothetical and is also accessory to a spectacular increase inthe number of unclassified languages. In 1956 Greenberg presents a classification which is distinguished from the previousones by its greater sophistication and classificatory explicitness (Greenberg 1960a). In itfew South American languages, however poorly documented, remain unaccounted for.Although it was published without a factual justification of the groupings proposed, itbecame widely known after its appearance in the 1958 edition of the EncyclopaediaBritannica, in Steward and Faron (1959) and in Current Anthropology (Greenberg1960b). Much later work on individual South American native languages begins witha statement locating the language at issue in Greenberg’s classification. It was alsoused and given credit in the development of anthropological and archaeological theoryconcerning past migrations; see, for instance, Lathrap (1970: 83) and Meggers (1979). Greenberg’s initial classification was superseded by a rather revolutionary proposaladvanced in his book Language in the Americas (Greenberg 1987). It will be the subjectof a separate section (1.7.4). Since the influence of Greenberg’s initial classification hasbeen particularly great, the essentials of it regarding the Andean region are reproduced
  • 53. 28 1 IntroductionTable 1.3 Greenberg’s (1956) classification of the languages of the Andes Yurumangui- A. Chibchan proper Chibcha–Duit,Tunebo group, Aruaco group, Cuna–Cueva. B. Paezan Choco, Cuaiquer, Andaki, Paez–Coconuco, Colorado–Cayapa, Jirajira, Yunca (=Chim´ , u Mochica), Atacameno (=Kunza), Itonama.–– A. Macro-Ge 1. Ge: Caingang, Chiquita, Guato. 2. Bororo. B. Macro-Panoan Tacana–Pano, Moseten, Mataco, Lule, Vilela, Mascoy, Charrua, Guaycuru-Opaie. [C. not applicable] D. Huarpe E. Macro-Carib Carib, Peban (=Yaguan), Witotoan.– A. Andean A 1. Ona, Yahgan (=Yamana), Alakuluf (=Kawesqar), Tehuelche, Puelche (=Gennaken), Araucanian (=Mapuche). 2. Quechua, Aymara. 3. Zaparoan (including Omurano, Sabela), Cahuapana. 4. Leco, Sec, Culle, Xibito–Cholon, Catacao, Colan. 5. Simacu (=Itucale, Urarina). B. Andean B Jibaro-Kandoshi, Esmeralda, Cofan, Yaruro. C. Macro-Tucanoan 1. Tucano (including Auixira), Ticuna, Muniche, Yuri, Canichana, Mobima. 2. Puinave. D. Equatorial Arawak (including Chapacura–Uanhaman, Chamicuro, Apolista, Amuesha, Araua, Uru), Tupi, Timote, Zamuco, Guahibo–Pamigua, Saliban, Otomaco–Taparita, Mocoa (=Kams´ , Sibundoy), Tuyuneri (=Toyeri, a Harakmbut), Yurucare, table 1.3. For this classification see also Key (1979) with some minor orthographicvariation. Occasionally, alternative language names are added in parentheses and pre-ceded by an equation sign in order to facilitate comparison with other classifications. There are minor differences between the versions in circulation of Greenberg’s classifi-cation. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Current Anthropology versions, Greenberg’sclassification is mapped onto McQuown’s (1955) language list; Simacu (better knownas Itucale or Urarina) is classified as Macro-Tucanoan, not Andean; Atacame˜ o (also nknown as Kunza) is left out (possibly as a result of a confusion with the extinct Ecuadorianlanguage called Atacame or Esmeralde˜ o); the subdivisions are more detailed and ex- nplicit and their denominations (phylum, stock, family, subfamily) more differentiated.In the Steward and Faron version, Simacu is not mentioned.
  • 54. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 29Table 1.4 The four networks proposed by Swadesh (1959, 1962)-: Chibchan (in its limited sense, see below, but including Timote) and Tucanoan; most languages of Meso-America.-: Cariban (including Jirajaran), Zaparoan (including Yaguan), Arawa, Kaingangan (including Ge), Guamo and Guat´ ; many language o groups of Brazil.-: Campan (including part of the Arawakan family: Campa, Machiguenga, Chamicuro, Amuesha, and additionally Chirino), Arawakan, Guahiboan, Cams´ , Chapacuran, Saliban, Yur´an a ı (including Ticuna and Cof´ n), Mobima, Tup´, Bororoan (including a ı Chiquitano), Sec, Lecoan (including Choc´ ) and Mochica; several o language groups of Brazil, Venezuela and Florida (Timucua).-: Quechuan (including Aymara, Cauqui and Uru–Chipaya), Paezan (including the Barbacoan and Coconucan languages, Andaqu´, ı Atacame˜ o and the Brazilian Kapishana and Mashub´), Cullian n ı (including Hibito–Chol´ n), Itonama, Cayuvavan (including o Esmeralda), Pano–Tacanan, Sonchon (which includes Moset´ n, e Chon and Hongote), Yuracare, Macuan (which includes Mac´ –Puinave, Het, Charr´ an, Ahuishiri, Zamucoan, Yurumangu´, u u ı Canichana, the Brazilian Ot´, Ofai´ –Xavante and Catuquina, and the ı e Venezuelan Macu), Muran (which includes Jivaroan–Cahuapanan, Boran and Huitotoan, along with the Brazilian Matanau´ and ı Mura–Pirah´ ), Puelche (Gennaken), Huarpean, Urarina, a Guaicuruan, Mapuchean (including Matacoan), Guachian (including Vilela and Guach´ of Mato Grosso, Brazil), Yamanan ı (including Alacaluf), Lule, Otomaco and Yaruro (Venezuela), Lengua-Mascoy (Paraguay), Trumai and Huari (Brazil). Outside South America: Tarascan (Mexico) and Zuni (New Mexico, USA). Swadesh’s classification (1959, 1962) is to a certain extent comparable withGreenberg’s in that it seeks to account for as many languages as possible. Swadeshsees the differentiation of languages as a geographic continuum. He does not define itexclusively in terms of genetically independent units which are internally structured bychronologically ordered moments of splitting. Instead of the usual tree model, Swadeshopts for a model of interconnected networks designed to cover the whole world, notonly the Americas. As in the case of Greenberg’s initial classification, the publication offactual evidence supporting the classification was announced but remained fragmentary.Swadesh’s classification is less well known than Greenberg’s. Nevertheless, some of thesurface-level proposals brought forward in it have of late received renewed attention (forinstance, the J´varo–Cahuapana connection and the proposed link between Atacame˜ o ı nand the Brazilian Kanoˆ or Kapishana; see Kaufman 1990). e Swadesh distinguishes four networks in South America represented in table 1.4. Tiniguan, Omurano and Nambikwara (Brazil) have a status independent from thenetworks. Some languages are left unclassified for lack of data: Puruh´ , Ca˜ ari, Aconipa a n
  • 55. 30 1 Introduction(Tabancale), Copall´ n, Diaguita, Gorgotoqui, Humahuaca, Munichi, Sabela and Mayna e(considered by others to be a group with Omurano). The networks are linked to eachother at different points and also to the North American Macro-Hokan network. Loukotka (1968) was published posthumously by Wilbert. It had been preceded byseveral other classifications, elaborated by the same author, the first of which dates backto 1935. Loukotka’s work is well known among scholars of South American Indianlanguages because it provides the reader with short word lists of almost every language,whether spoken or extinct, that had been documented before 1960. Although the datapresented are frequently inaccurate, the availability in one single work of some basicvocabulary of so many different languages constitutes an invitation to browsing andamateur linguistic comparison. Loukotka divides the South American and Caribbean languages into languages ofPaleo-American tribes, languages of Tropical Forest tribes and languages of Andeantribes. This general division, together with its subsequent subdivisions, seems to have ageographic or an anthropological inspiration, rather than a linguistic one. More essentialare the 117 genetic units (stocks, small stocks and isolated languages) which Loukotkadistinguishes and his endeavour to assign to as many languages as possible a place in theclassificatory framework which he develops. Loukotka’s classification is conservative inthe sense that the proposed groupings basically contain languages of which the geneticunity is unquestioned. Unnecessary splitting, such as observed elsewhere in the separa-tion of Aymara and Cauqui (Mason, McQuown) or in that of Puquina and Callahuaya(Kaufman 1990: 44), is successfully avoided. On the other hand, two cases of unjustifiedgrouping occur, both of them concerning the northern Andes (see also Kaufman 1990:37–8): (1) the inclusion into the Arawakan family of the Guahiboan languages of easternColombia; and (2) the inclusion into the Chibchan family of Yaruro, Esmeralde˜ o and a nsubstantial number of language groups of Ecuador and southern and eastern Colombiathat are not visibly related to it: Betoi, Andaqu´, P´ ez, Coconuco, Barbacoa and Sibundoy. ı aThe assignment of the Misumalpa family of Central America to the Chibchan stock mustequally be rejected if indisputable internal genetic cohesion is to be the leading criterion(Constenla Uma˜ a 1981). Loukotka’s postulation of two separate isolates in the south nof Chile, Alacaluf and Aksan´ s, will be discussed in chapter 6. a In table 1.5, those of Loukotka’s 117 stocks and families relevant to the Andean regionare enumerated. We will distinguish three approximate categories: (I) groups located inthe Andes and along the Pacific coast, (II) groups which are predominantly located in theeastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina, and (III) groupswhich are strongly represented in other areas, but also in the Andes, or in the easternlowlands as defined above. The original numbering is retained. As can be observed from table 1.5, 75 of Loukotka’s 117 units are represented in theAndes or in the eastern lowlands of the Andean countries. Admittedly, some groups are
  • 56. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 31Table 1.5 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Loukotka (1968)I Linguistic groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast: Y´ mana (1), Alacaluf (2), Aksan´ s (3), Patagon or Tshon (4), Timote (95), Jirajara a a (96), Choc´ (97), Idabaez (98), Yurimangui (99),* Sechura (101), Catacao (102), Culli o (103), Tabancale (104), Copall´ n (105), Chim´ (106), Quechua (107), Aymara (108), e u Puquina (109), Uro (110), Atacama (111), Mapuche (113), Diaguit (114), Humahuaca (115), Huarpe (117).II Linguistic groups located in the eastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina: Gennaken (5), Chechehet (6), Sanaviron (7), Vilela (9), Chiquito (13), Gorgotoqui (14), Tinigua (51), Yagua (54), Kahuapana (55), Munichi (56), Cholona (57), Mayna (58), Murato (59), Auishiri (60), Itucale (61), J´baro (62), Sabela (63), Z´ paro (64), ı a Cayuvava (71), Mobima (72), Itonama (73), Canichana (74), Tacana (76), Toyeri (77), Yuracare (78), Mosetene (79), Andoque (82), Uitoto (83), Bora (84), Cofan (100), Leco (112), Lule (116).III Linguistic groups partly or mainly represented in other areas: Guaicuru (8), Mataco (10), Lengua (11), Zamuco (12), Charrua (15), Kaing´ n (16), a Bor´ ro (27), Tupi (45), Arawak (46), Otomac (47), Guamo (48), Piaroa (50), o Tucuna (53), Chapacura (65), Pano (75), Guat´ (80), Tucano (81), Yuri (85), Mak´ o u (86), Araw´ (88), Karaib (89), Chibcha (94). a* The original sources refer to this group as Yurumangu´, which is also the name of a river ı in the present-day Colombian department Valle del Cauca. The form Yurimangu´ is found in ı Loukotka (1968) and, as Yurimangi, in Kaufman (1990, 1994).represented very marginally (Arawa, Guat´ , Kaing´ n, Yuri). On the other hand, there o ais an additional enumeration of ‘unclassified or unknown languages’, some of whichprobably represent separate groups, and, as we saw earlier, the Arawak and Chibchagroups are subject to further splitting. Another relatively conservative classification was carried out by Su´ rez, and published ain the fifteenth edition (1974) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It distinguishes 82language groups for all South America. In relation to Loukotka (1968), Su´ rez proposes athe groupings listed in table 1.6. Apart from these groupings, which apparently meet with Su´ rez’s approval, he in- adicates possible additional linkings advanced by others. Of Su´ rez’s groupings some aare relatively well established, such as Lulean (Balmori 1967; Lozano 1977), and Pano–Tacanan (Key 1968) without its Fuegian–Patagonian extension. Others have been refuted(Choc´ and Cariban; Uru–Chipaya and Mayan, see below) or rest upon extensive bor- orowing (Quechua and Aymara). Kaufman’s classification of 1990 (see also Kaufman 1994) is a conservative proposal,comparable to Loukotka’s insofar as the number of genetic groups (118 for all SouthAmerica) is concerned. According to the author, every group ‘is either obvious oninspection or has been demonstrated by standard procedures’ (Kaufman 1990: 37).
  • 57. 32 1 IntroductionTable 1.6 Groupings suggested by Su´ rez (1974) of language families and isolates aincluded in Loukotka (1968)Su´ rez (1974) a Loukotka (1968)Alacalufan Aksan´ s, Alacaluf aBora–Huitotoan Bora, UitotoCariban Choc´ , Karaib oGuaycur´ –Charruan u Charrua, GuaicuruJebero–Jivaroan J´baro, Kahuapana ıLulean Lule, VilelaMacro-Chibchan Chibcha, Itonama, Warao (Venezuela), Yanoama (Brazil, Venezuela)Macro-Ge Bor´ ro, Kaing´ n and a number of Brazilian groups o aMacro-Mayan Uro and the Mayan languages (Meso-America)Macro–Pano-Tacanan Mosetene, Pano, Patagon/Tshon, Tacana, YuracareQuechumaran Aymara, QuechuaSuggestions for further grouping are accompanied by the qualifications ‘good’, ‘good?’,‘promising’, ‘probable’ or ‘maybe’. Considering the greater methodological rigidityobserved by Kaufman, one may wonder why the number of groups in his classificationare not substantially higher. This is mainly because a number of poorly documentedextinct languages and language groups have not been included. In table 1.7 we have arranged the genetic groups of Kaufman’s classification insofar asthey concern the Andean region by using the same geographic distinctions as observedin relation to Loukotka’s work above. As can be deduced from tables 1.5 and 1.7, the extinct languages and languagegroups figuring in Loukotka’s classification, but not included in Kaufman’s, areIdabaez in Colombia, Tabancale and Copall´ n in northern Peru and four Argentinian egroups, Diaguit, Humahuaca, Chechehet and Sanaviron because they are undocumented.Kaufman observes that maybe Gorgotoqui should be excluded as well for the samereason.12 The differences between the two classifications reside in the treatment ofthe Chibchan family (L94) (Kaufman has six units where Loukotka has one), theArawakan family (L46) (Kaufman keeps Guahibo apart from Arawakan), Puquina(L109) (Kaufman has two units where Loukotka has one), the Je family (K74) (Kaufmanhas one unit where Loukotka has two), and Kaw´ skar (K58) (Kaufman has one unit where eLoukotka has two). Otherwise, apart from a minor readjustment concerning the demar-cation between Arawakan and Har´ kmbut/Toyeri (K18, L77), the two classifications are aidentical insofar as the Andean region is concerned.12 The Gorgotoqui people are well attested historically, and so is the existence of a grammar of the language written by a father Ru´z (Gonzales de Barc´a 1737–8). Unfortunately, no one has been ı ı able to locate this grammar in recent years.
  • 58. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 33Table 1.7 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Kaufman (1990) withtheir correlates in Loukotka (1968)*I Linguistic groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast: Yurimangi (1, L99 Yurimangui), Tim´ tean (2, L95 Timote), Hirah´ ran (3, L96 Jirajara), o a Chok´ (4, L97 Choc´ ), P´ esan (6, L94 Chibcha: Andaqu´/ Paez/ Coconuco), Barbak´ an o o a ı o (7, L94 Chibcha: Barb´ coa), Ezmeralda (27, L94 Chibcha: Esmeralda), Chim´ an (41, a u L106 Chim´ ), Kulyi (43, L103 Culli), Sechura (44, L101), Katak´ oan (45, L102 Catacao), u a Kechua (47, L107 Quechua), Haki (48, L108 Aymara), Chipaya (49, L110 Uro), Pukina (50, L109 Puquina: Puquina), Kolyawaya (51, L109 Puquina: Callahuaya), Chon (56, L4 Patagon or Tshon), Y´ mana (57, L1), Kaw´ skar (58, L2+L3 Alacaluf, Aksan´ s), a e a Mapudungu (59, L113 Mapuche), Warpe (61, L117 Huarpe), Kunsa (99, L111 Atacama).II Linguistic groups located in the eastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina: Betoi (5, L94 Chibcha: Betoi), Kams´ (10, L94 Chibcha: Sebondoy), Tin´wan (11, L51 a ı Tinigua), Wah´voan (15, L46 Arawak: Guahibo), Har´ kmbut (18, L46+L77 Arawak: ı a Mashco, Toyeri), Tekiraka (21, L60 Auishiri), Kanichana (22, L74 Canichana), Munichi (26, L56), Kof´ n (29, L100 Cof´ n), Kandoshi (30, L59 Murato), H´varo (31, L62 J´baro), a a ı ı Kawap´ nan (32, L55 Kahuapana), S´ paroan (33, L64 Z´ paro), Y´ wan (34, L54 Yagua), a a a a Omurano (35, L58 Mayna), Sabela (36, L63), Urarina (37, L61 Itucale), B´ ran (38, L84 o Bora), Wit´ toan (39, L83 Uitoto), Andoke (40, L82 Andoque), Chol´ nan (42, L57 o o Cholona), Leko (46, L112 Leco), Yurakare (52, L78 Yuracare), Tak´ nan (54, L76 Tacana), a Moset´ n (55, L79 Mosetene), Puelche (60, L5 Gennaken), Lule (65, L116), Vilela (66, e L9), Gorgotoki (69, L14 Gorgotoqui), Chikitano (70, L13 Chiquito), Itonama (98, L73), Movima (107, L72 Mobima), Kayuvava (108, L71 Cayuvava).III Linguistic groups partly or mainly represented in other areas: Ch´bchan (8, L94 Chibcha), Otom´ koan (12, L47 Otomac), Wamo (13, L48 Guamo), ı a Chapak´ ran (14, L65 Chapacura), Maip´ rean (16, L46 Arawak), Araw´ n (17, L88 u u a Arawa), Puin´ vean (19, L86 Mak´ ), Tuk´ noan (23, L81 Tucano), Tikuna (24, L53 a u a Tucuna), Jur´ (25, L85 Yuri), Jaruro (28, L94 Chibcha: Yaruro), P´ noan (53, L75 Pano), ı a Mat´ koan (62, L10 Mataco), Waikur´ an (63, L8 Guaicuru), Charr´ an (64, L15 Charrua), a u u Mask´ ian (67, L11 Lengua), Sam´ koan (68, L12 Zamuco), Bor´ roan (71, L27 Bor´ ro), Je o u o o (74, L16+L24, Kaing´ n, Ge), Guat´ (82, L80), Tup´an (109, L45 Tupi), K´ riban (110, a o ı a L89 Karaib), S´ livan (114, L50 Piaroa). a* Along with the group numbers introduced by Kaufman, the numbers of Loukotka’s classifi- cation are given in the formula Lx, followed by his group or language names when different from those used by Kaufman. In the main text, Kaufman’s group numbers are referred to as Kx. Kaufman suggests that further grouping may be possible in the following cases (thespelling is Kaufman’s): P´ esan (K6) and Barbak´ an (K7); Chibchan (K8) and Misumalpa a o(a Central American group); Wamo (K13) and Chapak´ ran (K14); Tikuna (K24) and uJur´ (K25); Ezmeralda (K27) and Jaruro (K28); H´varo (K31) and Kawap´ nan (K32); ı ı aS´ paroan (K33) and Y´ wan (K34); B´ ran (K38), Wit´ toan (K39) and Andoke (K40); a a o oSechura (K44) and Katak´ oan (K45); Kechua (K47) and Haki (K48); Pukina (K50) and aKolyawaya (K51); P´ noan (K53) and Tak´ nan (K54); Moset´ n (K55) and Chon (K56); a a e
  • 59. 34 1 IntroductionLule (K65) and Vilela (K66); Chikitano (K70), Bor´ roan (K71), Je (K74), Guat´ (K82) o oand nine other Brazilian groups; Kunsa (K99) and Kapishan´ . a In connection with other classifications, we commented en passant upon some of thesesuggested groupings (Lule and Vilela, Panoan and Tacanan, Chibchan and Misumalpa,Aymara and Quechua). Arguments for a comprehensive Macro-Ge grouping includingGe, Guat´ and Bororoan, as well as several other language groups, can be found in oDavis (1968) and in Rodrigues (1986, 1999), but do not, as yet, extend to Chiquitano.The proposal of a special genetic relationship between Esmeralda and Yaruro was ad-vanced by Seler (1902); see section 2.19. Loukotka located them in the same subgroupof Chibchan. Doris Payne (1984) has presented evidence for a genetic relationship ofYaguan (K34) and Zaparoan (K33). Callahuaya (Kaufman’s Kolyawaya) is a profes-sional jargon composed of roots taken from a Puquina dialect and Quechua endings (seesection 3.5). The unity of the extinct Sechura and the equally extinct Tall´ n languages aof the Piura area (K45 Katak´ oan) was proposed by Rivet (1949) but the evidence for ait considered inconclusive by Torero (Torero 1986); see section 3.9.2. The possibilityof a genetic relationship between the Boran and Huitotoan languages, on one hand, andAndoque, on the other, was considered unconvincing by a leading expert on this lan-guage (Landaburu 1979). As for the proposed special relationship between the Kunza orAtacame˜ o language and the Brazilian Kanoˆ or Kapishana, the geographic and cultural n ebarriers seem formidable, and there would need to be a very strong linguistic case tosupport it (see also section 3.7). 1.7.2 Quechuan and Aymaran, QuechumaranThe two dominant language groups of the central Andes, Quechuan and Aymaran,must be viewed as language families rather than as single languages. Traditionally,however, Quechuan is more often referred to as the Quechua language. The internalcomparison of Quechuan, a linguistic entity consisting of numerous local varieties,became an issue in the 1960s when Parker (1963) and Torero (1964) published their well-known articles about the Quechua dialect situation (see section 3.2.3). Hardman (1975,1978a, b) introduced the name Jaqi (‘man’, ‘human being’) for the Aymaran family,which, according to her, has three living members to be treated as separate languages:Aymara, Cauqui and Jaqaru. For a discussion of the terminology and a justification ofour use of the term Aymaran see section 3.1. Quechua(n) and Aymara(n) have repeatedly been compared to each other, but rarelyto other languages. Harrington (1943) suggested a relationship between Quechua andHokan; Dum´ zil (1954, 1955) compared some of the Quechua numerals to those of eTurkish. Following an unconvincing first attempt by Swadesh (1967), Liedtke collecteda list of lexical and grammatical resemblances between Quechua and Tarascan, some
  • 60. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 35of which are quite suggestive (Liedtke 1996). No thorough comparative study has beencarried out, however. Orr and Longacre (1968) set out to prove Mason’s Quechumaran hypothesis by tryingto reconstruct the phoneme system and part of the lexicon of the proto-language un-derlying it. Although they apparently achieved their aim, the lexicon they reconstructedconsists almost exclusively of shared vocabulary, which is evidently due to intensiveborrowing between the two languages at an early stage of their development. Giventhe virtually identical form of the shared items, the radically different character of theremainder of the lexicon is left unexplained. The same holds for the grammatical com-ponents of the two language groups, which show quite a few semantic but hardly anyformal similarities (Davidson 1977). Notwithstanding the lack of proof, the idea of aQuechumaran genetic unity exclusive of all other languages still has supporters. Foran attempt to revive the Quechumaran hypothesis on a more sophisticated basis seeCampbell (1995). The relationship between the Quechuan and Aymaran linguistic families is indeedunique. When the effects of loan traffic between individual Quechua dialects and thedifferent languages of the Aymaran family are left aside, a substantial basis of commonlexicon remains (about 20 per cent of the root vocabulary in each group), which can betraced back to the proto-languages. The phoneme inventories of the two proto-languageswere probably very similar, as most of the existing differences may be explained bylater internal developments in each of the two families. The existence of glottalisedand aspirated consonants in Aymaran and in a number of Quechua dialects (Cuzco,Puno, Arequipa, north and south Bolivian Quechua) is generally attributed to diffusionfrom Aymaran into Quechuan, although its distribution within the latter group is farfrom predictable (see section 3.2.5). Morphological and lexico-semantic coincidencesare highly specific and difficult to ascribe to parallel developments of a typologicalnature (see chapter 3 for more details). For a systematic inventory and discussion ofall the coincidences see also Cerr´ n-Palomino (1994a). The obvious similarities that ohave united Quechuan and Aymaran since the stage of the proto-languages stand incontrast with differences that are equally impressive. The very characteristic phonotac-tics and vowel suppression rules of all Aymaran languages (see section 3.3.4) are notfound in Quechuan. The structure of the verbal inflection, personal reference markingin particular, differs considerably between the two language groups, and, of course, amajor part of the lexicon and affixes do not show any systematic formal relationshipat all. All this leads to the conclusion that Proto-Quechua and Proto-Aymaran were spoken incontiguous areas, if not in the same area, which were probably situated in central Peru, theheartland of the Middle Andean civilisation. The bi-directional loan influence betweenthe two linguistic families was so intense, that possible surviving correspondences of a
  • 61. 36 1 Introductiongenetic kind became hard to detect. If the languages were not genetically related – andthere is no decisive evidence that they were – at the least one of them must have suffereda profound structural transformation adopting the phonological and morphosyntacticmodel represented by the other. This scenario presupposes a period of intense interactionand common development prior to the stage of the proto-languages. It may have begunwell before the beginning of our era. Although it is risky to venture a statement onsuch a speculative matter, a variety of Aymaran would be the best candidate for havingprovided such a model because of the more homogeneous character of Aymaran verbaland nominal inflection in comparison to Quechuan inflection. The remaining languages of the central Andean region do not participate in the samesort of lexical and grammatical entwining that characterises the relationship betweenQuechuan and Aymaran, although lexical borrowing has occurred. Since these languageshave been poorly studied so far, further research may eventually cast additional light ontheir relationship with either Quechuan, or Aymaran (or both). 1.7.3 Other proposals for individual language familiesAs we anticipated, there have been many proposals of genetic connections betweenspecific groups which were formulated outside the framework of an overall classification.For the earlier period (before 1960), two scholars, Rivet and Jij´ n y Caama˜ o, deserve o nto be specially commended for the size of their contribution to South American Indianlinguistics, including much classificatory work. Many of their classificatory proposalshave been the subject of drastic reconsideration. Therefore, it is not necessary to treatthem in detail here, but the amount of data they brought together and their influence havebeen considerable. Among Rivet’s classificatory contributions we find the proposedconnection of Arawakan and Tacanan (see above), the inclusion of Uru and Puquinawithin the Arawakan family (see also above), a rearrangement of the Chibchan familyinvolving many groups in Ecuador and southern Colombia (see also above), and theassociation of the isolated Yurumangu´ language of the Colombian Pacific coast with ıSapir’s Hokan phylum (Rivet 1942). Well known was also Rivet’s conviction that theChon languages (Tehuelche and Ona) of Patagonia were genetically related to languagesspoken by the Australian aborigines (Rivet 1925). Rivet’s comparative methods havemet with much criticism. In the case of Yurumangu´, for instance, he compared the ıvocabulary of this poorly documented extinct language with that of a wide array ofNorth American and Mesoamerican languages of supposed Hokan affiliation. A lexicalsimilarity between Yurumangu´ and any of these languages would be considered evidence ıof a genetic relationship. In his monumental El Ecuador Interandino y Occidental antes de la Conquista Espa-nola (Inter-Andean and Western Ecuador before the Spanish Conquest, 1940–5), Jij´ n y˜ oCaama˜ o assigned most languages of northwestern South America to a Macro-Chibchan n
  • 62. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 37phylum, which, in its turn, would fit into Hokan–Siouan. His Macro-Chibchan wasmore comprehensive than any of the previous proposals concerning Chibchan and itsconnections. Jij´ n y Caama˜ o’s Macro-Chibchan not only included all the languages in o nLoukotka’s Chibcha, but also Timote, Cof´ n, Murato (Candoshi), Yurumangu´, Mochica a ı(Chim´ ), Cholona and the Central American Lenca, Xinca, Jicaque and Subtiaba. uBy contrast, Tucano and Huitoto–Bora–Z´ paro are listed as separate phyla. Jij´ n y a oCaama˜ o’s interpretation of the comparative method has been much criticised, inter alia, nfor its acceptance of systematic equations of phonetically unrelated sounds. ConstenlaUma˜ a (1981) mentions some striking examples of this procedure. Nevertheless, both nRivet and Jij´ n y Caama˜ o must be credited with having brought to public attention a o nwealth of data on many extinct and poorly documented languages, which until then hadbeen virtually unknown. Recent investigations of the Chibchan family have tended to reduce the number oflanguages associated with it. In his thorough phonological reconstruction of Proto-Chibchan, Constenla Uma˜ a (1981) found that the Barbacoan, Paezan, Andaqu´, Kams´ , n ı aBetoi, Jirajaran and Misumalpa languages are not Chibchan. What is left is a familybased primarily in Central America and represented in Colombia and Venezuela by theCundinamarcan Chibchan languages Muisca and Duit, Tunebo, the Arhuacan languagesof the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Bar´, Chimila and Cuna. In a revised version of ıhis reconstruction, Constenla Uma˜ a (1989) proposes a Paya–Chibchan family con- nsisting of a Paya branch (represented by the sole Paya language of Honduras) and aChibchan branch. The Chibchan branch comprises several subgroups. One of them is aColombian Chibchan group which comprises the Arhuacan, Tunebo and CundinamarcanChibchan languages. Cuna is found to belong to a different subgroup with the extinctDorasquean languages of Panama. Chimila and Bar´ remain unclassified as to subgroup ıfor lack of data. Several poorly documented languages once spoken in the Colombiandepartment of Antioquia (Nutabe, Cat´o Chibcha) are also classified as Chibchan. The ılinguistic evidence seems to point to a relatively recent arrival of the Chibchan peoplefrom Central America, making it less likely for all proposed South American connec-tions to be correct. The alleged genetic relationship of Chibchan with Warao (in theVenezuelan Orinoco delta) and with Yanomama (in the Brazilian–Venezuelan borderlands; Greenberg 1959, 1960a, b; Migliazza 1978a) has been the object of an investi-gation by Weisshar (1982). Among many other similar proposals, we may mention thatof L´ vi-Strauss (1948), who suggested a genetic relationship between Chibchan and the eBrazilian Nambikwara languages (refuted in Constenla Uma˜ a 1981). n The reduced Chibchan family, such as proposed by Constenla Uma˜ a, is almost the nsame as that originally outlined by Uhle (1890). The affinities of the different mem-bers of the family thus being reconsidered, many languages previously classified asChibchan are again left unclassified. There is convincing evidence that the Barbacoan
  • 63. 38 1 Introductionlanguages Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer are related in a family which also includesthe Coconucan languages Guambiano and Totor´ (Constenla Uma˜ a 1991; Curnow and o nLiddicoat 1998). Whether the extinct languages of the northern Ecuadorian highlandsand the adjacent highlands in the Colombian department of Nari˜ o (Cara, Pasto) also nbelonged to the same grouping is a question which deserves further investigation (seesection 3.9.1). Although Greenberg and Kaufman classify Guambiano as Paezan, thedistance between Guambiano and P´ ez seems to be greater than that between Guambiano aand the Barbacoan languages. The position of P´ ez, Andaqu´, Kams´ and Betoi requires a ı arenewed attention. The Cariban language family, which has it greatest concentration of speakers in theGuyanas and eastern Venezuela, is represented in the Colombian–Venezuelan bordermountains, west of Lake Maracaibo, with the Yukpa or Motilones group. Rivet (1943a)assumed a more generalised presence of Carib-speaking peoples in the ColombianAndes, by assigning the (extinct) Muzo, Colima, Panche, Pijao, Pant´ gora and Op´ n– a oCarare languages of the Magdalena basin to the same family. He also believed theChocoan languages of the Colombian Pacific area to be related to Cariban (Rivet 1943b).Durbin and Seijas (1973a, b, 1975) have shown that only the Op´ n and Carare languages, olocated to the northwest of the Cundinamarcan highlands, were demonstrably Cariban.Of the other languages Muzo and Colima may have been Cariban as well. For the threeremaining languages, however, the lexical similarity with Cariban is not such that itcan provide the assumed relationship with a solid basis (see section 2.11). The allegedconnection of Chocoan and Cariban has been superseded by Greenberg’s proposal relat-ing the Chocoan languages to Paezan. For similarities between Chocoan and Barbacoansee section 2.3. Similarly, Constenla and Margery (1991) have published evidence for arelation between Chocoan and Chibchan. Genetic connections have been sought between the Mochica language (also knownas Yunga and, erroneously, as Chim´ ) and Chibchan (Jij´ n y Caama˜ o, Greenberg), u o nand also with the Mayan language family in Mesoamerica (Stark 1972a, 1978). Anotherlanguage that has been associated with Mayan is Mapuche (Stark 1970, Hamp 1971).Olson (1964, 1965) has proposed a genetic relationship between Mayan and the Chipayalanguage of the Bolivian altiplano (closely related to Uru). As this theory became widelyaccepted – Longacre (1968: 320) considers it proven – Uru–Chipaya came to be included,along with Mayan, into the North America-based Macro-Penutian phylum in publishedclassifications of the North American and Mesoamerican languages (e.g. Voegelin andVoegelin 1965). Campbell (1973) later showed that many of the similarities observed byOlson between Chipaya and Mayan could have been the result of contact with Quechua orAymara. Very little is left of the arguments that seemed to have convinced the Americanistlinguistic community for some time. A serious drawback is the lack of a good grammar
  • 64. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 39and dictionary of Uru and Chipaya, which makes verification a difficult task for thenon-initiated. Family-internal reconstruction work was carried out for Panoan by Shell (1965, 1975),and for Tacanan by Key (1968) and by Girard (1971). Another complex of proposalsconcerns the connection of Panoan and Tacanan with the Bolivian Moset´ n language e(Su´ rez 1969) and the relationship of both groups to Uru–Chipaya, to Yuracar´ (also in a eBolivia) and to the Chon languages of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (Su´ rez 1973, afollowing Swadesh 1962 in the latter two suggestions). Key (1978) compared Pano–Tacanan and Moset´ n to Araucanian. e The extensive Arawakan or Maipuran family has been the subject of much comparativeand classificatory work (Shafer 1959, Kingsley Noble 1965, Matteson 1972, Tovar 1986,Valenti 1986, Payne 1991a). Kingsley Noble includes the Uru and Puquina groups andAraw´ in his comparison. Arawakan and Araw´ share rather specific features of their a agender systems but are quite far apart lexically. Matteson includes Madi (Araw´ ) and aHarakmbut, a procedure which is rejected by Tovar. David L. Payne (1991a) does notinclude Araw´ and Harakmbut within the Arawakan family. Harakmbut has now been ashown to be related to the Brazilian Katukina family with a suggested further connectionto Macro-Ge (Adelaar 2000). Although Arawakan as a whole constitutes a closely-knit family with strong lexicalresemblances (Rodrigues 1986: 70), the supposed affiliation between Arawakan and anumber of languages in the Andean region has met with reserve. Such languages areAmuesha (recognised as Arawakan by Tello in 1913), Apolista (shown to be Arawakanby David L. Payne 1991b), Chamicuro (Parker 1987) and Res´garo. Although Amuesha ı(spoken in the Andean foothills of the Peruvian department of Pasco) seemed at thebest a highly divergent member of the Arawakan family, Wise (1976) convincinglydemonstrated that Amuesha is closely related to pre-Andean Arawakan groups, suchas Campa, Machiguenga and Piro, the relationship being obscured by rather unusualphonetic changes that took place in Amuesha. These changes must have occurred recentlybecause they have also affected loan words from Spanish. The classificatory status ofRes´garo is discussed by Allin (1975) and by David L. Payne (1985); see also Aikhenvald ı(2001). The fact that Uru–Chipaya and Puquina are by no means closely related invalidatestheir inclusion into Arawakan as a subgroup, a hypothesis which is nevertheless defendedby de Cr´ qui-Montfort and Rivet (1925–7), Kingsley Noble (1965) and Greenberg e(1987). It does not, however, preclude the possibility that one of the two languages,i.e. Puquina, exhibits a remote Arawakan affinity. There are, in fact, similarities in thelexicon and, above all, in the pronominal system (cf. section 3.5). The ongoing inves-tigation of the internal relations within the Arawakan family, which once spread over
  • 65. 40 1 Introductionmuch of South America and the Caribbean, holds great promise for the unravelling ofthe continent’s linguistic puzzle. David L. Payne (1990) has pointed at some very striking similarities concerning theformation of possessive nouns in four South American families, Arawakan, Araw´ , aCariban and Candoshi, which are difficult to explain through borrowing. On the otherhand, Rodrigues (1985a) has presented well-documented lexical evidence relating theCariban family to the Tupi stock (tronco Tup´ ), a huge genetic construct attaining its ımaximum differentiation in the Brazilian Madeira basin. Lexical similarities betweenTupi and Macro-Ge (tronco Macro-Jˆ ) were already noticed by Davis (1968, 1985) and econfirmed in Rodrigues (1985b). The suggested genetic relationship of Tupi, Caribanand Macro-Ge is supported by typological similarities (a relatively loose morphologicalstructure and a lack of polysynthesis), as observed by Doris Payne (1990b); see alsoRodrigues (2000). David L. Payne (1981) investigated the alleged relationship of the Jivaroan languagesand Candoshi (proposed in both Greenberg’s classifications). Although he found lexicalsimilarities, these lay in the sphere of flora and fauna and seemed to point at bor-rowing. David L. Payne (1990: 84–5) no longer considers the evidence for a J´varo–ıCandoshi grouping convincing, but he mentions some grammatical similarities betweenArawakan, Candoshi and Cariban. In Su´ rez’s classification (1974), Jivaroan is linked to aCahuapanan, another small language family of the northern Peruvian foothills. Kaufman(1990) considers this a possible relationship. Among several other suggestions, Kaufman(1994: 63) offers an interesting new proposal concerning a genetic relationship betweenCandoshi, Omurano (Mayna), and Taushiro (all in the Peruvian Amazon). A new proposal concerning a possible genetic relationship between two linguisticgroups that had never been associated before has been made by Croese and Payne(Croese 1990). They observed rather striking lexical similarities between Araucanian(Mapuche) and the Arawakan family. The matter requires further investigation. For the Panoan languages Migliazza (1978a, mentioned in Migliazza 1985) proposesa rather close genetic relationship with Yanomaman, based on a cognate number of about40 per cent, and a more remote relationship with Chibchan (see above). The Guaicuruan language family (including Toba as its principal representative inthe pre-Andean space) and the Matacoan language family have, together with a thirdgroup, Lengua–Mascoy, their centre of gravity in the Gran Chaco. Tovar (1981) foundconsiderable lexical resemblance between Toba and the Matacoan languages. Whetherthis is due to a common genetic origin or borrowing is an issue awaiting further in-vestigation. Tovar also observes lexical similarities between Matacoan and Arawakan.In Greenberg’s classification Matacoan, Guaicuruan and Lengua–Mascoy are takentogether. For Charr´ an, a group of extinct languages once located in Uruguay and u
  • 66. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 41Argentinian Entre R´os, Arawakan, Matacoan, Lule–Vilelan and Guaicuruan connec- ıtions have been proposed by Perea y Alonso (1937), Ferrario (Ms), Rona (1964) andSu´ rez (1974), respectively. See for the three first proposals the discussion in Longacre a(1968: 353–4), who seems to give most credit to Ferrario’s arguments for the Matacoanconnection, cited in Censabella (1999: 61). Suˇnik (1978: 94) appears to favour a sGuaicuruan connection. Among the languages of the southernmost part of South America, a groupingwas recognised as early as 1913 by Lehmann-Nitsche. It consisted of the Patagonianlanguages (Tehuelche, Tehues) and the languages of Tierra del Fuego’s main island(Selk nam or Ona, Haush). This grouping was called Tshon or Chon, a denominationthat includes elements of the words ‘Tehuelche’ and ‘Ona’. For many languages oncespoken in Argentina it will probably never be possible to even approximately determinea genetic affiliation because the populations in question were exterminated before theirlanguages could be recorded. Viegas Barros has proposed a genetic relationship betweenKawesqar and Yahgan (Censabella 1999: 88). A final word about possible trans-Pacific genetic connections. Although there havebeen many proponents of such connections (Rivet 1925; Imbelloni 1928; Ibarra Grasso1958), no valid arguments were brought forward to support them. The search for them,however, has shown at the least two lexical items shared by Polynesian languages andlanguages in South America. One of them is the name of a plant domesticated in theNew World, the sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), Easter Island kumara, Hawaiian ʔuala,which is found as k’umar or k’umara in Quechua and Aymara. The second word is toki,Easter Island ‘stone axe’, Mapuche ‘stone axe’, ‘military chief (the holder of the axe)’;compare also Yurumangu´ totoki ‘axe’ (Jij´ n y Caama˜ o 1945). Although the former ı o ncase constitutes near proof of incidental contact between inhabitants of the Andeanregion and the South Pacific, the latter is not nearly as convincing but certainly deservesattention. Apparently, there were sporadic contacts that led to an occasional interchangeof words, not to migrations of entire populations that could have brought along theirlanguages. 1.7.4 The Greenberg (1987) proposalThe appearance of Greenberg (1987) brought the discussion about the origins of lan-guage, both in the Andes and elsewhere in the New World, into a new phase. Rather thanmerely containing the long expected factual justification of Greenberg’s earlier proposal,which, in part, it did, the terrain of comparison was widened to include the whole ofnative America. It also brought a revision of the classification of the South AmericanIndian languages proposed before. In short, Greenberg (1987) contains the followingnew elements:
  • 67. 42 1 Introduction A. All the languages of the New World belong to three families: Eskimo–Aleut, Na–Dene and Amerind; Eskimo–Aleut and Na–Dene are limited to the Arctic and parts ofNorth America. Consequently, all South American and Mesoamerican Indian languages,as well as most North American Indian languages are related. They belong to a singlefamily: Amerind. The tripartite division of the native American languages is associatedwith three consecutive waves of migration, the first of which is represented by speakersof Amerind. Support for this hypothesis is sought from physical anthropology (bloodgroups, dental structure) and archaeology; a first outline of it had already been published,before the appearance of Greenberg (1987), in Greenberg, Turner and Zegura (1985,1986). B. The South American languages are divided into seven subgroups: Macro-Ge,Macro-Panoan, Macro-Carib, Equatorial, Macro-Tucanoan, Andean and Chibchan–Paezan. As in Greenberg’s earlier classification, one language, Yurumangu´ is assigned ıto a North American subgroup, Hokan. In addition, Macro-Ge, Macro-Panoan andMacro-Carib are said to form a group at an indermediate level, which correspondsto the Ge–Pano–Carib of Greenberg’s earlier classification; the same holds for Equa-torial and Macro-Tucanoan, which formed part of Andean–Equatorial in the earlierclassification. Andean–Equatorial as such is abandoned. So there are four groups atthe intermediate level between Amerind and the seven subgroups just enumerated: Ge–Pano–Carib, Andean, Equatorial–Tucanoan and Chibchan–Paezan (the former Macro-Chibchan). For Amerind as a whole, including North America and Mexico, Greenbergposits eleven subgroups and six groups at the intermediate level. As Swadesh (1962)did before him, Greenberg finds more genetic diversity in South America than inNorth America (except for the presence of non-Amerind Na–Dene and Eskimo–Aleut). C. Chibchan–Paezan receives extensions in North America and elsewhere in theAmericas. Its Chibchan division is made to include Tarascan and Cuitlatec, two lan-guage isolates located in Mexico; the Paezan division now includes Timucua, a lan-guage isolate once to be found in Florida. Huarpean (Allentiac), originally classifiedas Ge–Pano–Carib, has been reassigned to Paezan, where it finds itself together withAtacame˜ o. J´varo–Candoshi and the languages associated with it (Esmeralda, Yaruro n ıand Cof´ n), originally a separate division of Andean–Equatorial, have been reclassi- afied as Equatorial. Quechua and Aymara are both classified as Andean but no longertreated as a unit. Greenberg (1987: 100) admits ‘that Aymara appears relatively isolatedwithin Andean’. Greenberg’s new classification comes at a point in time when historical linguists tendto be increasingly reluctant to accept distant genetic relationships if not accompaniedby solid proof (see, in particular, Campbell and Mithun 1979). Greenberg shows him-self highly critical of the current methods of obtaining such proof, ‘the use of sound
  • 68. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 43correspondence tables and asterisked reconstructed forms’ (1987: 1). Instead, Greenbergadvocates the search for lexical and grammatical similarities that become apparent froma comparison of many languages at the same time (‘multilateral comparison’). He doesnot pursue phonetic exactitude and considers it premature to look for regular sound cor-respondence lest other significant similarities should be missed. Greenberg also allowsfor a substantial amount of error in his data: ‘the method of multilateral comparisonis so powerful that it will give reliable results even with the poorest of materials. In-correct material should have merely a randomizing effect’ (1987: 29). As a matterof fact, the data included in Greenberg (1987) are riddled with errors. For instance,Cochabamba Quechua ‘to see’ is given as ruk, instead of rikh u-, and quechuologistsare puzzled about identifying the ‘Huanacucho dialect’ (probably a designation forAyacucho affected by a confusion with the name of some other dialect, such as Hu´ nuco aor Huanca). Old misunderstandings are perpetuated and even reinforced. For instance,the alleged unity of Uru–Chipaya and Puquina is not only defended, but Olson’s work isquoted as evidence for it (Greenberg 1987: 84). In reality, Olson (1964) merely observedthat some Chipaya call their language Puquina, which says nothing about the undeni-able fact that there also existed a Puquina language quite distinct from present-dayChipaya. Identical namegiving is no proof of identity. On the other hand, possible closeconnections, such as Guambiano and Barbacoan, or Harakmbut and Katukina, weremissed. It is not surprising that Greenberg’s work has met with vigorous criticism; see, forinstance, the discussion in Current Anthropology 28: 647–67, Kaufman (1990), and thereviews by Adelaar (1989) and Matisoff (1990). Nevertheless, not all his proposals shouldbe dismissed lightly. Some of the proposed genetic links will undoubtedly turn out valid,even though the factual basis is still insufficient. Greenberg also gives an inventory ofgrammatical elements that are widespread in the Amerindian languages. Of some casesGreenberg was not the first to have noticed them (see, for instance, Swadesh 1954).The grammatical elements in question are not merely cases of typological resemblancesbecause they concern the formal aspects of morphemes. One of the best-known casesis a pattern consisting of n, or another non-labial nasal, for reference to first person, incombination with m for reference to second (both usually followed by a vowel). Onemay be tempted, for instance, to investigate the possibility of a genetic link between,say, Araucanian and Californian Penutian on the basis of Araucanian ny i ‘my’ and mi‘your’, on the one hand, and Wintu ni ‘I’ and mi ‘you’, on the other, only to find out laterthat many other Amerindian languages exhibit similar or related patterns of personalreference. Whatever the origin of such resemblances may be, they can hardly be due toborrowing. In table 1.8, we summarise the classification proposed in Greenberg (1987) insofar asit concerns the languages and language groups located in the Andean region. Alternative
  • 69. 44 1 IntroductionTable 1.8 Greenberg’s (1987) classification of the languages of the AndesI.   C. Hokan 5. Yurumangui.III. - A. Chibchan 3. Nuclear Chibchan: a. Antioquia (incl. Katio, Nutabe). b. Aruak (incl. Guamaca and Kagaba). c. Chibcha (incl. Duit and Tunebo) d. Cuna. f. Malibu (incl. Chimila). h. Motilon. B. Paezan 1. Allentiac (incl. Millcayac). 2. Atacama. 3. Betoi. 4. Chimu. 5. Itonama. 6. Jirajara. 8. Nuclear Paezan: a. Andaqui. b. Barbacoa (incl. Cara, Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer). c. Choco. d. Paez (incl. Guambiano).IV.  A. Aymara Aymara, Jaqaru. B. Itucale–Sabela 1. Itucale. 2. Mayna. 3. Sabela. C. Kahuapana–Zaparo 1. Kahuapana (incl. Jebero and Chayahuita). 2. Zaparo (incl. Arabela and Iquito). D. Northern 1. Catacao. 2. Cholona (incl. Hibito). 3. Culli. 4. Leco. 5. Sechura. E. Quechua. F. Southern 1. Alakaluf. 2. Araucanian. 3. Gennaken (=G¨ n¨ na K¨ ne). 4. Patagon (incl. u u u Ona). 5. Yamana.V. – A. Macro-Tucanoan 1. Auixiri. 2. Canichana. 10. Mobima. 11. Muniche. 15. Puinave. 17. Ticuna– Yuri: a. Ticuna. b. Yuri. 18. Tucano. B. Equatorial 1. Macro-Arawakan: a. Guahibo. c. Otomaco. d. Tinigua. e. Arawakan: (i) Arawa. (ii) Maipuran (incl. Amuesha, Apolista, Chamicuro, Res´garo and the Harakmbut ı languages). (iii) Chapacura. (iv) Guamo. (v) Uro (incl. Puquina and Callahuaya). 2. Cayuvava. 3. Coche (=Kams´ ). 4. Jibaro–Kandoshi: a a. Cofan. b. Esmeralda. c. Jibaro. d. Kandoshi. e. Yaruro. 5. Kariri–Tupi: b. Tupi. 6. Piaroa (incl. Saliba). 8. Timote. 11. Yuracare. 12. Zamuco.VI. –– A. Macro-Carib 1. Andoke. 2. Bora–Uitoto: a. Bora. b. Uitoto. 3. Carib. 5. Yagua. B. Macro-Panoan 1. Charruan. 2. Lengua. 3. Lule–Vilela: a. Lule. b. Vilela. 4. Mataco–Guaicuru: a. Guaicuru. b. Mataco. 5. Moseten. 6. Pano–Tacana: a. Panoan. b. Tacanan. C. Macro-Ge 1. Bororo. 4. Chiquito. 7. Ge–Kaingan: a. Kaingan. 8. Guato.
  • 70. 1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 45names are occasionally added, preceded by an equals sign (=) in order to ease identi-fication. The lowest level of the classification is left out because not all the languagenames listed in Greenberg’s classification actually represent different languages but,rather, dialects or different designations of the same language. In other cases, however,they do represent different languages, a fact which may give rise to confusion.
  • 71. 2 The Chibcha SphereThe present chapter deals with the languages of the northern Andes; the term ‘ChibchaSphere’ has been chosen because of the historically important role of the Chibcha peoplein that area. In the sixteenth century the Chibcha or Muisca were the inhabitants of thehighland region that coincides with the modern Colombian departments of Boyac´ and aCundinamarca. Although historical sources insist that there was no linguistic unity, itis likely that most Chibcha spoke closely related languages or dialects belonging to asubgroup of the Chibchan language family. At least two languages have been identified:Muisca was spoken on the upland plain (sabana) surrounding the present-day Colombiancapital Santaf´ de Bogot´ (department of Cundinamarca) and Duit in the department e aof Boyac´ . By their location in the highlands east of the Magdalena river valley, close ato the Amazonian plains, the Chibcha held a peripheral position in the ColombianAndes. Therefore, their linguistic influence on other parts of that area must not beoverestimated. The Chibcha were a populous agricultural nation, who specialised in the cultivation ofpotatoes and cotton. They were divided into several chiefdoms, two of which occupied aleading position. A southern chiefdom, centred in Bacat´ or Muequet´ (near the modern a atown of Funza, close to present-day Bogot´ ), was ruled by a king called the zipa. At athe time of the arrival of the conquistador Gonzalo Jim´ nez de Quesada in 1537, the evalley of Bogot´ was filled with a multitude of high wooden buildings, which impressed athe Spaniards so much that they gave it the name of Valle de los Alcazares (‘Valleyof the Castles’). The zipa’s northern neighbour, located in Hunza (today’s Tunja, thecapital of the Boyac´ department), was known as the zaque. A third town of importance awas Sogamoso (Sugamuxi), the religious centre of the Chibcha and the seat of a highlyvenerated wooden temple of huge dimensions. According to tradition, the temple ofSogamoso was burned down accidentally by two greedy Spanish conquistadores, wholet go of their torches as they beheld the richness of the gold decorations inside (Hemming1978: 86–7). The high priest of Sogamoso subsequently changed his name to don Alonsoand became one of the most faithful propagandists of the Christian faith (Triana yAntorveza 1987: 555).
  • 72. 2 The Chibcha Sphere 47 J I RO UA G Santa Marta A TÍO TA IR O N QU E ARHUACO CA S NE J I R A JAR A A Cartagena CHI MALIBÚ AN ILO AYA MÁ N MILA MOC G AYÓ N MOT PACABUEY CUICA CU EV SINÚ TE Panamá TIMO A Magdalena R. Mérida GUAMO HACARITAMA GUACA- UÍ NORI VENEZUELA YA R IG PA N A M A . YAMESÍ aR CUNA CHITARERO uc Ca OPÓN-CARARE OTOMACO Atrato CHOCÓ CATÍO GUANE BETOI NUTABE LACHE IDABAEZ R. AGATANO COLIMA SÁLIBA DUIT GORA Sogamoso PANTÁ MUZO MAIPURE OS R. ARMA- Tunja TEGUA ACHAGUA NC E PANCH POZO S. Juan MUISCA C HA IRRA ANSERMA Bogotá QUIMBAYA SUTAGAO QUINDÍO O P I JA LILI C O L O M B I A CA YURUMANGUÍ NA JAMUNDÍ JITIRIJITI PÁEZ GUA Í QU PUBENZA TIMANÁ DA Popayán YALCÓN AN BARBACOA TAMA San Agustín SINDAGUA QUILLACINGA NIGUA PASTO MALABA ESMERALDEÑO SIONA YUMBO CARA O QUIJO N O CH L ECUADOR Z I A R P E R U BMap 1 The Chibcha Sphere: overview of ethnolinguistic groups attested in premodern sources The Chibcha heartland also became known worldwide as the source of the El Doradolegend, a major incentive for conquest and exploration in the northern Amazon. Atregular intervals, the cacique or chieftain of Guatavita, one of the most influential vassalsof the zipa, would anoint himself with gold dust and plunge into a volcanic lake. The
  • 73. 48 2 The Chibcha Spherestory of El Dorado had a tremendous impact on Spanish conquistadores and adventurers.During the decades following the conquest, they would organise numerous expeditionsgeared at finding other El Dorados. These expeditions brought considerable havoc andmisery to the Chibcha and their neighbours. Their damage in terms of human losses andsocial disruption was such that the emperor Charles V forbade all such expeditions in1550 (Hemming 1978: 139). There were some remarkable cultural achievements, such as the goldsmith’s art ofthe Quimbaya people of the Cauca river valley, the monumental stone sculptures of SanAgust´n in the department of Huila, the Ciudad Perdida (‘lost city’) of the Tairona in ıthe Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, and the pictographic writing system of the Cuna (cf.Nordenski¨ ld 1928–30). At the same time, the native peoples of the northern Andes were odivided. Apart from the powerful Muisca kingdoms, there was no political unity, butrather a conglomerate of small chiefdoms and tribes, living in an almost permanent stateof war. These small political units were usually referred to as behetr´as by the Spaniards ı(see, for instance, Cieza de Le´ n 1553; Acosta 1590). The difference in this respect obetween New Granada, as Colombia was called in colonial times, and Peru (includingpresent-day Ecuador) was emphasised by most of the chroniclers. The Chibcha, althoughhighly organised internally, were besieged by the warlike tribes of the Magdalena valley,including the Panche, the Pant´ gora and the Pijao, who blocked their way to the west aand contributed to their isolation. Within the neighbouring highlands, the Muzo and theColima were encroaching upon the Chibcha heartland from the northwest. A specialcaste of warriors, the guecha (probably g¨ echa [wety a]; cf. Uricoechea 1871: 253) were uin charge of the defence of the Chibcha realm, which is otherwise described as relativelypeaceful. After the arrival of the Spaniards, many Colombian tribes refused to submit andcontinued to fight the colonial rulers, taking advantage of the rugged physiognomy ofthe country. Famous is the story, possibly a legend, of la Gaitana, a female cacique ofTiman´ in the Upper Magdalena valley. In 1543 she is said to have hunted down and aferociously killed the Spanish conquistador Pedro de A˜ asco, who was responsible for nburning her son.1 Many sectors of the Magdalena river valley remained dangerous andinsecure for travellers well into the twentieth century. The Chimila, who inhabited theregion east of the lower Magdalena valley (departments of Cesar and Magdalena) and theAndaqu´ of the forest region east of San Agust´n (departments of Huila and Caquet´ ), are ı ı aknown for their long and tenacious resistance. The fearsome Pijao of Huila and Tolimachallenged Spanish rule in a large-scale rebellion in the early seventeenth century.1 The story of La Gaitana is related by the chroniclers Juan de Castellanos (1589) and Pedro Sim´ n o (1625). Her ethnic background has not been established. She may have belonged either to the P´ ez or to the local Yalc´ n nation. a o
  • 74. 2 The Chibcha Sphere 49 Outside the Chibcha heartland, another concentration of highly developed and popu-lous societies was found in the valley of the Cauca river, in the modern departments ofCaldas, Risaralda and Quind´o. An outstanding position was occupied by the Quimbaya ıfederation, centred around the modern towns of Chinchin´ (near Manizales) and Pereira a(Chaves, Morales and Calle 1995: 156). The Quimbaya are known as the most talentedgoldsmiths of pre-Columbian America. Although the first contacts with the Spanishconquistador Jorge Robledo in 1539 were not particularly hostile, the subsequent re-pression and exploitation by Sebasti´ n de Belalc´ zar and his men from Peru led to a a aseries of rebellions, which brought about the near annihilation of the Cauca peoples. TheQuimbaya became extinct as a recognisable group around 1700 (Duque G´ mez 1970). oTheir language remains unknown and its affiliations a matter of speculation. Sixteenth-century chroniclers report the existence of almost innumerable differentlanguages. Some of them give a fair account of the situation which can help to make usaware of the loss. Pascual de Andagoya (1545) mentions the Atunceta, Ciaman, Jitirijitiand Lili languages spoken in the area of Cali and Popay´ n. Only the names of these alanguages have been preserved, as well as the observation that they were so differentfrom each other that the use of interpreters was required. Pedro de Cieza de Le´ n o(1553), the chronicler of Peru, who accompanied Captain Robledo in his conquest ofthe lower and middle Cauca valley, has left very precise information about the languagesituation of Antioquia, Caldas, Quind´o and Risaralda. Through an analysis of Cieza’s ılinguistic observations, Jij´ n y Caama˜ o (1938: Appendix, pp. 109–12) points at the o nexistence of four different languages in the Caldas–Quind´o–Risaralda region: Arma– ıPozo, Quimbaya–Carrapa–Picara–Paucura, Quind´o and Irra. However, this enumeration ıdoes not include the languages of the Anserma, of the Chancos nation and of severalother local groups. They may either have been separate languages, or be included inone of the groupings just mentioned. The information on all these languages is toolimited to permit any conclusion as to their genetic affiliation. An exception are thelanguages of Antioquia (known as Old Cat´o and Nutabe), which were identified as ıChibchan (Rivet 1943–6; Constenla Uma˜ a 1991: 31). Interestingly, one of the few nwords mentioned by Cieza de Le´ n for the language spoken in the towns of Arma and oPozo (department of Caldas) is ume ‘woman’, which corresponds to ome in the Cunalanguage of the Colombian and Panamanian Caribbean coast. A frequent ending -racuais reminiscent of the Cuna derivational ending -kw a (cf. Llerena Villalobos 1987: 72–3).Such similarities, as well as some others, were observed by Rivet (1943–6) but remainmerely suggestive as long as no additional data are found concerning the languages ofthe Cauca valley. Since most of the indigenous languages were lost without possibility of recovery,the extent of linguistic variety in the northern Andes may never be fully appreci-ated. The few languages that have survived the contact with the European invaders may or
  • 75. 50 2 The Chibcha Spheremay not be representative. As it stands, none of the original languages of the Caucaand Magdalena valleys have survived, and there is hardly any documentation on them.The main languages of the sabana, Muisca and Duit, became extinct in the eighteenthcentury, although in the first case the available documentation is relatively extensive. Onthe other hand, some surviving groups (e.g. the Chocoan Ember´ , the Cuna, the P´ ez) a ahave been remarkably expansive in recent times. From this perspective, the originallinguistic situation and the present-day one are hardly comparable. 2.1 The language groups and their distributionColombia and western Venezuela form the northernmost section of the Andean region.This area was a meeting point of linguistic and cultural influences from the centralAndes, the Amazon basin, the Caribbean and Central America. From an archaeologicaland cultural point of view, it is part of a region often referred to as the ‘Intermediate Area’(Area Intermedia), negatively defined as an area belonging neither to Mesoamerica, nor tothe Central Andean civilisation domain. In addition to Colombia and western Venezuela,the Intermediate Area also comprises a substantial part of Central America. The linguisticfeatures of the Intermediate Area have been studied by Constenla Uma˜ a (1991), who nfinds it subdivided into three main typological regions: a Central American–NorthernColombian area (including the Cof´ n language isolate as an outlier), an Ecuadorian– aSouthern Colombian area, and a Guajiro–Western Venezuelan area. Two important language families, Cariban and Chibchan, have left their mark in thenorthern Andes since precontact times. Cariban has its origin in the Amazonian andGuyanese regions, whereas Chibchan has Central American connections. Consideringtheir distribution and the amount of internal differentiation within the area under dis-cussion, the intrusion of the Chibchan languages in the northern Andes is clearly mucholder than that of the Cariban languages. Nevertheless, a Central American origin forthe Chibchan languages seems likely because some of the most fundamental diversityinternal to the family is found in Costa Rica and western Panama (Constenla Uma˜ a n1990). Furthermore, the closest presumable relatives of the Chibchan family as a whole,Lenca and Misumalpa, are located at the northern, Central American borders of theChibchan domain (Constenla Uma˜ a 1991).n The area of the Caribbean coast of Colombia comprises two important nuclei ofChibchan-speaking populations: the Cuna, around the Gulf of Urab´ and adjacent aareas of (Atlantic) Panama, at one end, and the complex of indigenous peoples ofthe Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (Ika, Kankuamo, Kogui and Wiwa) and the Sierrade Perij´ (Bar´), at the other. Between these two geographical extremes, several other a ıgroups were decimated or eliminated early in the colonial process. In the present-daydepartments of Bol´var, C´ rdoba and Sucre, three prosperous chiefdoms, Fincen´ , ı o uPancen´ and Cen´ fana represented the Sin´ culture, renowned for its burials rich in gold u u u
  • 77. 52 2 The Chibcha Sphere(Chaves et al. 1995). The surviving descendants of the Sin´ , who live at San Andr´ s de u eSotavento (C´ rdoba), not far from the town of Sincelejo, have no record of their origi- onal languages. The language of the lower Magdalena river (between Tamalameque andTrinidad) was known as Malib´ . It and the extinct languages of neighbouring peoples, usuch as the Mocana and the Pacabueyes, have been grouped with the (Chibchan) lan-guage of the Chimila by Loukotka (1968: 244) without any factual basis (cf. ConstenlaUma˜ a 1991). The Chimila language is still spoken today. The language of the Tairona, nwho were destroyed in 1600 after almost a century of warfare with the colonists of SantaMarta, may have been related to (or even identical with) one of its Chibchan neighboursfurther east in the Sierra Nevada.2 The Andes northeast of the Chibcha heartland were inhabited by several agriculturalhighland peoples who shared some of its cultural characteristics. They include the Lache,who lived near the Sierra Nevada del Cocuy (northeastern Boyac´ ), the Guane in the asouthern part of Santander department (south of Bucaramanga) and the Chitarero ofthe Pamplona area (department of Norte de Santander). The Agatano occupied themountains west of V´ lez (Santander). Most of these peoples have been classified as eChibchan, although there are hardly any linguistic data to support such a supposition.Since the territory of the Lache bordered on that of the modern (Chibchan) Tunebo orUwa of the eastern Andean slopes and lowlands in Casanare, it is tempting to speculatethat they represented the same linguistic grouping. Here again, however, the necessarydata on Lache are lacking. The Venezuelan Andes form a geographical continuation ofthe area just referred to. The high Andes of the states of M´ rida and Trujillo comprise ea substantial indigenous (now Spanish-speaking) population, representing the (extinct)Timote–Cuica family, not related to Chibchan. In the pre-Andean hills of the states ofLara and Falc´ n, the Jirajaran family (also extinct) constituted another linguistic isolate. o Cariban-speaking peoples survive in the Colombian–Venezuelan border area west ofLake Maracaibo (Yukpa and Japreria). Elsewhere in the northern Andean region theidentification of Cariban languages has been problematic as a result of their poor docu-mentation and early extinction. In addition, Spanish chroniclers did not employ the term‘Carib’ (caribe) primarily as a linguistic concept, but rather as a cover term for Indianswho remained intractable in their contacts with the colonial authorities, and, especially,for those who used arrow-poison and practised cannibalism. Such tribes inhabited the2 The linguistic connection between the area of Santa Marta and the Muisca highlands of Bogot´ a is illustrated by Piedrahita’s account of the conquest of 1537. In 1676 he wrote: Quienes m´ s a percibieron el idioma fueron Peric´ n, y las Indias, que se llevaron de la costa de Santa Marta, y o R´o Grande, que con facilidad lo pronunciaban, y se comunicaban en el con los Bogot´ es (‘Those ı ´ a who best understood the language [of the Muisca] were Peric´ n [the expedition’s guide] and the o Indian women, who hailed from the coast of Santa Marta, and the R´o Grande [Magdalena], who ı with ease pronounced it, and communicated in it with the Bogot´ es’; Ostler 2000, following Uhle a 1890).
  • 78. 2.1 The language groups and their distribution 53Magdalena valley, where at least one group, Op´ n–Carare, has been identified as Cariban oon linguistic grounds (Durbin and Seijas 1973a, b). In the case of other Magdalenanpeoples, such as the Panche and the Pijao, a Cariban affiliation remains hypotheti-cal, although the poor lexical data of the Pijao language that are left exhibit traces ofCariban influence in its basic vocabulary (cf. Constenla Uma˜ a 1991: 62). Cariban influ- nence in the Magdalena valley is also suggested by its unique Carib-sounding toponymy(Coyaima, Natagaima, Tocaima), which is found in both the ancient Panche and Pijaoareas. In other areas, however, where a Carib presence has been suspected mainly oncultural grounds, e.g. in the Cauca valley, there is no linguistic evidence to support it. In addition to Cariban and Chibchan, two more families which have their origin out-side the northern Andes are found in the area under discussion. The Arawakan familyof probable Amazonian origin is represented near the Caribbean coast (Guajiro andParaujano). The Quechuan group (cf. chapter 3) is represented by the Inga or Inganolanguage in the southern Colombian departments of Nari˜ o and Caquet´ . The influence n aof Quechua is particularly noticeable in the southern Andes of Colombia, notwith-standing the fact that local languages, such as Pasto, Quillacinga and Sindagua contin-ued to remain in use for a long time. It is not unlikely that Quillacinga and Sindaguasurvive in present-day Kams´ or Sibundoy and in (Barbacoan) Cuaiquer or Awa Pit, arespectively (Groot and Hooykaas 1991). The department of Nari˜ o, bordering on nEcuador, has a substantial indigenous population, even though the use of Spanish is nowpredominant. The extent of Quechua influence in southern Colombia, as well as the moment of itsintroduction, is a matter of debate. It may already have been present before the arrival ofthe Spaniards, or it may have been introduced by the yanacona (serfs) from Quito, whoaccompanied Belalc´ zar and other conquistadores on their expeditions. The Quechua- aspeaking yanacona played an important part in the conquest of New Granada. They wereeventually allowed to settle down at several locations north of Popay´ n, in the Bogot´ a aarea and in Huila (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 118–20). As early as 1540, Andagoya (1986:133) observed a sort of mixed use of Quechua and Spanish among the Jitirijiti tribe, wholived in the neighbourhood of the present-day town of Cali. He quotes the words of arecently christianised Indian woman turning down an improper proposal made to her bya Spaniard: mana se˜ or que soy casada y tern´ Santa Mar´a ternan hancha pi˜ a, ‘no, n a ı nsir, I am married, and the Holy Mary will be very angry’; cf. Quechua mana ‘no’, anˇ a cpiny a ‘very angry’ (tern´ and ternan may represent the Spanish verb tendr´ ‘he/she will a ahave’). In 1758 the Franciscan friar Juan de Santa Gertrudis visited the archaeologicalremains at San Agust´n, leaving a detailed account of his findings (Reichel-Dolmatoff ı1972). He reported that Quechua, la lengua linga (an adulteration of la lengua del Inga‘the language of the Inca’), was used in the Upper Magdalena region, an area which hadbeen highly multilingual in the sixteenth century (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 169).
  • 79. 54 2 The Chibcha Sphere As might be expected, not all northern Andean languages can be assigned to oneof the four widely extended families discussed so far. In addition to the two extinctVenezuelan families mentioned earlier, there are at least two local families, Barbacoanin the southern departments of Cauca and Nari˜ o (as well as in Ecuador) and Chocoan nin the Pacific region. There are five living Barbacoan languages: Awa Pit (Cuaiquer),Cha palaachi (Cayapa), Guambiano, Totor´ and Tsafiki (Colorado). Cha palaachi and oTsafiki are only spoken in Ecuador. Chocoan is represented by two languages: Ember´ aand Waunana. The P´ ez language of Cauca and Huila is either an isolate or the surviving amember of a small family. On the eastern slopes Kams´ or Sibundoy and Andaqu´ (the a ılatter extinct) are isolates, and so are Yurumangu´ and Esmeralde˜ o, extinct languages ı nof the Pacific region of Colombia and Ecuador. In the following sections we will discuss some general characteristics of the principaldocumented languages of the Colombian and Venezuelan Andes, as well as the north-western part of Ecuador. Because of its historical importance, Muisca will be treatedin somewhat more detail. Demographically important languages, such as Guajiro andP´ ez, will also receive particular attention. The final section of this chapter contains aan overview of the languages of the eastern lowlands that are adjacent to the northernAndes. 2.2 Research on the native languages of ColombiaAmong the precursors of academic studies concerning the languages of the northernAndes two scholars must be mentioned, the natural scientist and physicist Jos´ Celestino eMutis (1732–1808) and the linguist Ezequiel Uricoechea (1834–80). After his arrival inNew Granada in 1761, Mutis became an enthusiastic collector of descriptive materialof difficult accessibility concerning the indigenous languages of the Spanish Americandomain. In 1787 he received the commission to make a collection of indigenous languagematerials as the result of a request addressed by Catherine II of Russia to the king of Spain.The empress needed these materials for her ambitious project to document the languagesof the world in Saint Petersburg. Mutis carried out his assignment with great care, makingcopies so as to avoid losses. As it appears, most of Mutis’s materials never reachedRussia (Ortega Ricaurte 1978: 102), but copies remain in Madrid. Born in Colombia,Uricoechea, a man of wide interests, spent part of his life in Belgium, where he helda professorship in the Arabic language. He was the founder of the series Biblioth` que eLinguistique Am´ ricaine (1871–1903), in which much early work on the indigenous elanguages of the Americas, including his own on Muisca, was brought together. Inmore recent times, the Frenchman Paul Rivet (1876–1958) collected and publishedmaterial on numerous languages of Colombia and the Venezuelan Andes, includingextinct languages of which only a minimum amount of data could be found. Landaburu
  • 80. 2.2 Research on the native languages of Colombia 55(1996a, 1998, 1999) has published substantial parts of Rivet’s Colombian archive, keptat the Mus´ e de l’Homme in Paris. e In Colombia a number of important studies, both descriptive and historical, haveappeared, especially in recent decades. In 1965 Sergio El´as Ortiz published a survey of ıthe Colombian indigenous languages. The Instituto Caro y Cuervo in Bogot´ , a venerable ainstitution originally dedicated to Hispanic studies, issued several works of indigenouslinguistic interest. Among these are a history of studies dedicated to the Colombiannative languages (Ortega Ricaurte 1978), a history of the fate of the indigenous languagesin colonial society (Triana y Antorveza 1987), an overview of historical-comparativeefforts concerning these languages (Rodr´guez de Montes 1993) and two fundamental ıworks on Muisca (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1980, 1987; see section 2.9 on Muisca). A most a eremarkable achievement is Lenguas Ind´genas de Colombia: una visi´ n descriptiva ı o(Indigenous Languages of Colombia: a Descriptive Vision) (Gonz´ lez and Rodr´guez a ı2000), a monumental book containing descriptive sketches and information by differentspecialists on all the native languages spoken in Colombia today. In 1984 the Universidad de los Andes in Bogot´ , in co-operation with the French aCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), initiated a programme for thetraining of descriptive linguists under the direction of Jon Landaburu, in order to studyand document the indigenous languages of Colombia in a systematic way. The institutionharbouring this programme, the Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´genes ı(CCELA), issues a series of descriptive studies and dictionaries, which have appearedregularly since 1987. Up to now, the series includes work on Achagua, Cuna, Ember´ , aChimila, Damana, Guambiano, Guayabero, Kogui, P´ ez, Sikuani and Ticuna. Most of the acontributions in Gonz´ lez and Rodr´guez (2000) have been written by linguists trained a ıin the CCELA programme. Members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, which has deployed activities inColombia for several decades, have produced descriptive studies, inter alia, of Achagua,Ember´ , Ika and several Tucanoan languages. Also worth mentioning is a useful com- aparative vocabulary of Colombian indigenous languages, compiled by Huber and Reed(1992). The journal Estudios de Ling¨ ´stica Chibcha, published by the University of Costa uıRica at San Jos´ , contains much data and discussion concerning the reconstruction of eearlier stages of Chibchan in particular. Other important work by the Costa Rican schoolis Constenla’s dissertation on the reconstruction of Chibchan phonology (ConstenlaUma˜ a 1981) and his book on the typology of the Intermediate Area (Constenla Uma˜ a n n1991). Morphosyntactic reconstruction of Colombian Chibchan languages is attemptedin Ostler (2000). The indigenous literature of the northern Andean area is mainly confined to collec-tions of folkloric text. An overview of the traditional literature in the Chibchan languages
  • 81. 56 2 The Chibcha Spherecan be found in Constenla Uma˜ a (1990a). Two Chibchan languages, Cuna and Kogui, nare well represented in this respect. Many Cuna texts were collected in the first halfof the twentieth century by researchers of the Ethnographic Museum in G¨ teborgo(Nordenski¨ ld 1928, 1930a, 1938; Holmer 1951; Holmer and Wass´ n 1953). An eval- o euation of the literary value of these texts is provided by Kramer (1970). More recenttext material and an extensive study of Cuna discourse and speech styles can be foundin Sherzer (1983, 1986). A rich corpus of Kogui folkloric text was collected by Preussin 1915 and published in different issues of the journal Anthropos (Preuss 1921–5; cf.also Fischer and Preuss 1989). Further information on Kogui traditional literature canbe found in Reichel-Dolmatoff (1950–1). Of great interest is an extensive collection ofHuitoto myths, transcribed and with a vocabulary and a German translation, again byPreuss (1921–3). Finally, Howard and Sch¨ ttelndreyer (1977) present some texts in oKams´ and in Cat´o (Choc´ ), respectively. a ı o 2.3 ChocoanThe Chocoan language family is located on the Pacific side of Colombia and easternPanama.3 It consists of two languages, Ember´ and Waunana. The Waunana language ahas its principal location in the lower part of the San Juan river valley in the Colombiandepartment of Choc´ . Additionally, a substantial number of Waunana speakers have omigrated to coastal areas adjacent to Panama and to the Darien region of Panama itself.The Ember´ constitute a flexible and expanding population, which have colonised new aterritories whenever external or demographic pressure incited them to do so. At present,the Ember´ not only inhabit Darien and the Choc´ , but also parts of Antioquia, Cauca, a oC´ rdoba, Nari˜ o, Risaralda and Valle del Cauca, thus occupying areas both to the north o nand to the south of the Waunana. In recent times some Ember´ have reached Ecuador, aand others have crossed the Andes into the Amazon region (department of Caquet´ ). aChocoan presence is easily traceable by the frequent occurrence of the ending -d´ ‘river’ oin place names (e.g. Apartad´ , Baud´ , Docampad´ , Opogad´ ). The number of Ember´ o o o o aspeakers in Colombia is estimated at more than 70,000, while that of the ColombianWaunana has been calculated at ca. 8,000 (Arango and S´ nchez 1998).4 a3 Loukotka (1968) reports the existence of an extinct language isolate in the area of Bah´a de ı Solano (northern Choc´ ), which he calls Idabaez. It is based on a report concerning a short-lived o missionary adventure of the Franciscans between 1632 and 1646 (Rowe 1950a). Only one word (tubete ‘medicine-man’) and the name of a chief (Hijuoba) were recorded, too little to attribute a separate identity to this group on linguistic grounds only.4 The population numbers supplied by Arango and S´ nchez (1998) often seem to be inflated in a relation to figures taken from other sources. It has nothing to do with a difference in number be- tween speakers of the language and members of the ethnic group. In many Colombian indigenous groups the ancestral language is used by all members.
  • 82. 2.3 Chocoan 57 In their expansion the Ember´ have settled in areas formerly occupied by other peo- aples who became extinct during the process of colonisation. Ember´ is known under adifferent names according to the region where it is spoken (Cat´o in central Antioquia ıand C´ rdoba, Cham´ in southern Antioquia and Risaralda, Saija in the area south of o ıBuenaventura, Samb´ in the Panamanian border area). At least in one case, such a uname (Cat´o) originally designated a Chibchan people who preceded the Ember´ in ı athe same area (central Antioquia). Whether or not there has been any continuity be-tween the modern Choc´ and extinct societies such as the Quimbaya and Sin´ , re- o umains an open question.5 A connection that certainly seems promising is that betweenChocoan and the language of the Cueva people, who inhabited central and easternPanama at the beginning of the sixteenth century (Loewen 1963a; Constenla and Margery1991). Constenla and Margery (1991) point out a number of lexical and morphologicalsimilarities between the Chocoan and the Chibchan languages, which may indicatehistorical contact or a possible genetic relationship. It seems useful to observe that thereare a number of close lexical similarities with the Barbacoan languages as well, e.g.Proto-Barbacoan (Curnow and Liddicoat 1998) *kim-ϕu ‘nose’, Guambiano (Curnow1998) kalu, Awa Pit (Calvache Due˜ as 2000) kail y ‘ear’; Proto-Chocoan (Constenla nand Margery 1991) *k˜ b´ ‘nose’, *k w r´ ‘ear’. Greenberg (1987) links Chocoan with e uBarbacoan and P´ ez. Rivet’s proposal of a genetic link between Chocoan and Cariban a(Rivet 1943b) has been rejected upon several occasions (cf. Pardo and Aguirre 1993:278–92). The difference between the two Chocoan languages, Ember´ and Waunana, is in the afirst place lexical. Ember´ itself is best treated as a dialect continuum. From a phonolog- aical point of view, the Chocoan languages are complex and show a considerable amountof internal variation. Comparative studies of the phonology of the different varieties canbe found in Loewen (1963b), and Pardo and Aguirre (1993). Llerena Villalobos (1995)contains the views of different authors on the phonology of several Ember´ varieties. aWaunana has many syllable- and word-final obstruents, whereas Ember´ has a preference afor open syllables. All varieties of Chocoan present three series of stops, which can beeither voiceless aspirated/voiceless unaspirated/voiced lax (Waunana, Saija), or voice-less plain (somewhat aspirated)/voiced tense/voiced implosive (the northern dialects ofEmber´ ). In addition to these basic distinctions, there is much allophonic variation; in a5 In a discussion of Rivet (1943b), Constenla and Margery (1991) refer to a short word list collected by Bastian (1878) among possible descendants of the Quimbaya. It seems relatable to Chocoan. Considering the late date, so long after the recorded extinction of Quimbaya, one has to take into account the possibility that the interviewed persons were Chocoans who had migrated into the area. A closer analysis of the place and circumstances under which this word list was collected can possibly throw light on the matter.
  • 83. 58 2 The Chibcha SphereTable 2.1 Overview of the consonant inventories of Chocoan languages and dialects(adapted from Pardo and Aguirre 1993) Atrato, Upper San Antioquia, Waunana, Saija Lower Baud´ o Juan N. Choc´oStops Aspirated ph th kh ph th kh ph th kh ph th kh Plain p t k ʔ p t k Voiced b d g b d b d b d Implosive /ðAffricates Voiced z dz ˇand βFricatives Voiceless c s h ˇVibrants r rrResonants l m nApproximants w ya nasal environment the stops generally have prenasalised allophones. The dialect ofthe lower Baud´ river is unique in that it presents four series in the labial and dental oarticulations (voiceless aspirated/voiceless unaspirated/voiced lax/voiced implosive). Aconstant feature of all the Chocoan languages is a phonemic opposition between a sim-ple (r) and a multiple vibrant (rr), both of which occur in intervocalic and syllable-finalposition. The number of affricates and fricatives varies according to the dialect. Onlythe southern varieties have a phonemic glottal stop. Table 2.1 contains a synopsis of the consonant systems of Waunana and a number ofEmber´ dialects. a Constenla and Margery (1991) propose a reconstruction of Proto-Chocoan phonology.In spite of the rather elaborate inventories of stops found today in the Chocoan varieties,they reconstruct a stop system with voiced (b, d ) and voiceless (p, t, k) elements only.This reconstruction is claimed to be valid for Proto-Ember´ , as well as for Proto-Chocoan ain its totality. The minimal vowel inventory found in all present-day varieties comprises three highvowels (i, , u), two mid vowels (e, o) and one low vowel (a). In addition, Waunana has anextra row of lowered (open) high vowels; Saija has an extra central vowel ( ). A nasalityopposition is relevant for all six vowels. Progressive nasal spread can affect whole wordsunless checked by an opaque consonant (one of the obstruents, or rr). In an analysis of
  • 84. 2.3 Chocoan 59Saija (Harms 1994), the nasal consonants are treated as allophones of b and d before anasal vowel. Also in Saija stress can be contrastive. Two detailed and recent studies address the structure of Ember´ varieties. Harms a(1994) deals with the Saija variety of Nari˜ o, Cauca and Valle, whereas Aguirre Licht n(1998, 1999) describes the Cham´ dialect of Cristian´a (southwestern Antioquia). Llerena ı ıVillalobos (1994) treats predication in the Cham´ dialect of the Upper And´ gueda ı a(interior of Choc´ ). In Gonz´ lez and Rodr´guez (2000), Hoyos Ben´tez presents a sketch o a ı ıof the Napip´ river dialect (in the Baud´ hills, coast of north-central Choc´ ) and Mej´a ı o o ıFonnegra a sketch of Waunana. A detailed study of loan words in Waunana by Loewen(1960) documents language contact with Spanish. Chocoan word forms present an agglutinating structure which is mainly based onsuffixes. Prefixes are exceptional. Nominal suffixes refer to case and number. Verbalsuffixes refer to aspect, tense, number and mood. The verbal morphology furthermoreincludes suffixes for causative, directionality and other derivational categories. Auxil-iaries and copula verbs play an important role in the grammar. There is a rich choice ofcompound verbs, including some cases of object incorporation. In a genitive construction a possessor precedes its head without any special marker.This is also the case when the modifier is a demonstrative pronoun. Adjectives andnumerals, however, follow their heads. Personal reference is indicated by pronouns,which precede a noun (when referring to a possessor), or a verb (when referring tosubject and object). There is no indication of personal reference in the verb form itself,except that Waunana has a set of auxiliary verbs reflecting person-of-subject, which arelimited to stative constructions (Mej´a Fonnegra 2000). ı All Chocoan languages are ergative. The case system comprises an ergative markerwhich is obligatory with agents of transitive constructions. Objects of transitive verbsand subjects of intransitive verbs remain unmarked. The preferred constituent order isAgent–Patient–Verb. For instance, in Waunana, we find: (1) kh um-au su:rr bu:rr-pi-hi-m jaguar-E deer fall-CA-PA-DV ‘The jaguar caused the deer to fall down.’ (Mej´a Fonnegra 2000: 89) ı (2) su:rr bu:rr-hi-m deer fall-PA-DV ‘The deer fell down.’ (Mej´a Fonnegra 2000: 89) ı A special ergative marker is used with singular pronouns: ʔ (3) mu-a p -rik binʔ e de:-hi-m I-E you-DA medicine give-PA-DV ‘I gave medicine to you.’ (Mej´a Fonnegra 2000: 90) ı
  • 85. 60 2 The Chibcha Sphere When plurality is marked on the verb in Ember´ , it refers to the agent, regardless aof whether the latter is in the ergative or in the absolutive case. Examples from Saija(southern Ember´ ) are: a (4) eper˜ :-r˜´ a a-pa ph okh ura6 kh o-pa-ˇ i-d´ ´ c a person-PL-E toasted.corn eat-HB-PA-PL ‘The Epena used to eat toasted corn.’ (Harms 1994: 98) (5) m warr´ -r˜ co:-pa-ˇ i-d´ a a ˇ˜ c a I son-PL fight-HB-PA-PL ‘My children used to fight.’ (Harms 1994: 103) Ember´ has a series of copula verbs used in adjectival and locative constructions. They a(lexically) encode such distinctions as number, aspect, honorific and size. In example (6),also from Saija, ci-to:n-a- is the honorific plural past stem of the copula verb. A past- ˇtense marker (-ˇ i-) is then still required. c (6) cup r´a ci-to:n-a-pa-ˇ i-d´ ˇ ı ˇ c a poor be.HN-PL-PA-HB-PA-PL ‘They were very poor.’ (Harms 1994: 32) The following examples from Cham´ illustrate a predicative construction with a ıdual copula verb (7), and a locative construction with a possessive interpretation (8),respectively. ´ (7) d´ i ep˜ panu-ma a ˜ era ´ we Ember´ be.D-DV a ‘The two of us are Ember´ .’ a (Aguirre Licht 1999: 55) (8) ci w´ r mar´a- e u ˇ a ı ´ DC child Mar´a-L be.SG ı ‘The child belongs to Mar´a.’ ı (Aguirre Licht 1999: 56) 2.4 Yurumangu´ ıYurumangu´ is the name of a group of Indians who inhabited the upper reaches of the ıCajambre, Nava and Yurumangu´ rivers. These rivers descend to the Pacific Ocean from ıthe mountain range Los Farallones de Cali, situated southwest of the modern town ofCali in the department of Valle del Cauca. The Yurumangu´ were visited between 1765 ıand 1768 in two expeditions organised by a local prospector, Sebasti´ n Lanchas de aEstrada. He left a diary and a list of words and expressions in the language, as well assome interesting ethnographic notes. These materials were published in 1940 by Arcila6 Intervocalic kh has a fricative pronunciation [x].
  • 86. 2.5 Cuna 61Robledo (cf. Ortiz 1946). The fate of the Indians of Yurumangu´ after the two visits of ıthe 1760s is unknown. There have been no further records of their existence. Rivet (1942) made a study of the language data recorded by Lanchas and concludedthat Yurumangu´ was not visibly related to any other language of the area. He proposed ıa genetic relationship with the Hokan languages of North America, leaving Yurumangu´ ıas the only language with such an exclusive connection outside South America. Thesuggestion was explicitly followed by Greenberg (1960a, 1987: 132). Jij´ n y Caama˜ o o n(1945) proposed both a Hokan and a Chibchan affinity. Many other researchers (e.g.Kaufman 1990, Constenla Uma˜ a 1991) prefer to treat the language as an isolate. n The data on Yurumangu´ are very limited and probably unfit to establish genetic ıconnections that are not particularly close. Its simple sound system with a preference foropen syllables does not plead in favour of a North American connection. Even thoughthe Yurumangu´ territory was situated along rivers descending to the Pacific, it was an ıinland tribe, one of the reasons for which the group could remain unnoticed for so long.Instead of speculating about a marine origin for the Yurumangu´, it would probably be ımore logical to consider them as survivors of one of the groups of the Cali region whomay have fled exploitation by the cruel Belalc´ zar and his men. a Some morphological elements can be deduced from the Yurumangu´ data, such as a ısuffix -sa that characterises the citation form of several verbs (e.g. anga-sa ‘to sleep’,sai-sa ‘to die’, ulsa-sa ‘to take out’) and a prefix ca(i)- that occurs frequently in kinshipterms and words referring to body parts (e.g. cai-g´ ‘mother’, cai-enai´ ‘grandmother’, ı ecai-cona ‘head’, cai-lusa ‘hair’). Assumedly, ca(i)- may have been one of the possessivepersonal reference markers. Interrogative pronouns began with c [k], as, for instance,cana ‘what?’, and cu or co ‘where?’ (cu-na ‘where is it?’, cu-cae ‘where are you?’,co-cobica ‘where do you come from?’, co-cuebiquen ‘where are you going?’). ConstenlaUma˜ a (1991: 53) observes word order preferences to the effect that a genitive must nprecede its head, and an adjective must follow its head, characteristics that the languageshares with Chocoan. A lexical item worth mentioning is chuma ‘to drink’ (e.g. in chuma-´ ‘drink!’). Ortiz e(1946: 25) observes that it is used in southern Colombian Spanish to denote drunkenness,suggesting that it could be a loan from Yurumangu´. However, the same expression is ıwidely used in Ecuador and northern Peru. Its most likely source is Mochica cɥ uma-‘(get) drunk’ (cf. section 3.4). The case suggests that, notwithstanding their apparentisolation, the Yurumangu´ were not entirely free of contact with neighbouring speakers ıof Spanish. 2.5 CunaIn Colombia approximately 1,000 Cuna (autodenomination Tule) occupy two villagesnear the Gulf of Urab´ : Arqu´a (department of Choc´ ) and Caim´ n Nuevo (department of a ı o a
  • 87. 62 2 The Chibcha SphereAntioquia). A majority of the Cuna people (over 40,000) inhabit neighbouring Panama,where they occupy an autonomous region or comarca, comprising the archipelago ofSan Blas in the Caribbean and parts of the Darien mainland. The Cunas of Panamaobtained their autonomy as a result of the 1925 uprising led by the nele (‘shaman’)Kantule.7 Notwithstanding their present homeland, the Panamanian Cuna are origi-nally from Colombian territory. They were probably chased from the Atrato river valleyand the adjacent Pacific region by their hereditary enemies, the Ember´ . On the coast aof northern Choc´ a place name Jurad´ means ‘river of the Cuna’ in Ember´ , sug- o o agesting that Cuna once may have inhabited that area (cf. Rowe 1950a). During theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries they moved eastward, attacking the Spanish set-tlements on the Sin´ river (Fals Borda 1976), and westward, occupying empty areas in uthe Darien region, which had been inhabited by the extinct Cueva people. In 1681 theDarien Cuna were visited by the English ship’s doctor Lionel Wafer, who stayed withthem for a while and published a word list of the language (Friedemann and Arocha1985).8 The Cuna language belongs to the Chibchan family, of which it constitutes a separatebranch (Constenla Uma˜ a 1993: 119). Descriptive material on the Cuna language can be nfound in Holmer (1946, 1947, 1951, 1952), Sherzer (1975, 1978) and Llerena Villalobos(1987, 2000). The sound inventory of Cuna, which is relatively small, is subject tomorpheme-internal allophonic variation and an elaborate set of sandhi rules operatingat morpheme boundaries. The language has five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and a seriesof diphthongs or, rather, vowel sequences. Vowels are automatically long in stressedopen syllables (stress is normally on the penultimate). Extra-long vowels, analysable assequences of same vowels, occur as well, in particular, in monosyllabic words (Holmer1946: 186). Within the consonants there is a distinction between geminate (tense) and simple(lax), as can be seen in table 2.2. Geminate consonants only occur intervocalically; the geminate stops pp, tt, kk andkkw are always voiceless. By contrast, the plain stops p, t, k and kw occur in all positions.They are normally voiced between vowels or when adjacent to a voiced consonant; inword-initial position voicing is optional. The affricate c is always voiceless and acts ˇ7 The kantule, literally, ‘flute (kammu) man (tule)’, is the name of the central figure at girls’ puberty rites (Sherzer 1974).8 Loukotka (1968: 238–9) apparently treated Wafer’s Cuna word list as a specimen of the Cueva language. The mistaken view that the Cuna are close relatives or even direct descendants of the Cueva is still upheld in literature (e.g. Greenberg 1987: 117; Whitehead 1999: 887). Cuna lan- guage and culture are very different from those of the unfortunate Cueva, who were exterminated during the early years of Spanish colonisation (Romoli 1987; Constenla Uma˜ a 1991: 47). n
  • 88. 2.5 Cuna 63Table 2.2 Cuna consonant inventory Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar LabiovelarStops Simple p t k kw Geminated pp tt kk kkwAffricate c ˇFricative sNasals Simple m n Geminated mm nnLaterals Simple l Geminated llVibrant rApproximants w yas the geminate counterpart of s. As a result, the two are usually not distinguished inloan words, where c is banned from positions reserved for non-geminates. The sound r ˇis a trill and has no geminate counterpart. It cannot occur in word-initial position, andneither does l, which is automatically replaced by n in that position. The existence of separate labiovelar phonemes kw and kkw is defended in Holmer(1947: 13; 1951: 35) and Sherzer (1975: 49), but rejected by Llerena Villalobos. Theexistence of an opposition between kue ‘to be, to become’ and kw a (classifier for seed-like objects and also a frequent multifunctional suffix) seems to favour the formerposition. Sandhi in Cuna mainly consists in the syncope of morpheme-final and word-finalvowels and syllables, sometimes accompanied by other processes, such as replacementof l by r (9) and various types of fusion (for an account of the possible changes seeLlerena Villalobos 1987: 209–16). Particularly frequent is the suppression of final ein polysyllabic morphemes, when followed by any other morpheme. Voicing may bepreserved, even where the triggering intervocalic context has disappeared as a result ofsyncope (10). (9) mola-makke [morm´ kke] a cloth-prick ‘to sew’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 26) (10) ape-takke [abd´ kke] a want-see ‘to await’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 216)
  • 89. 64 2 The Chibcha Sphere When, as a result of syncope, the velar stops k and kk end up in syllable-final positionbefore another (non-velar) consonant, they are often replaced by a high vocalic glide y,as in (11): (11) pakke-nae-te [payna:de ∼ pany a:de] buy-go-TH ‘He went to buy it.’ (Llerena Villalobos 2000: 29) In spite of its frequency, it is not always predictable whether sandhi will occur ornot. Holmer (1951: 41) observes that syncope is highly dependent on register. The useof non-syncopated forms is often found in songs and in ceremonial speech, of crucialimportance to Cuna society. Syncopated forms are more frequently found in men’s speechthan in the speech of women and children. In some cases sandhi is obligatory, whereasin other cases it is merely a matter of stylistic variation. The different registers of theCuna language have been studied by Sherzer (1983) in his work on the ethnography ofspeech tradition. He observes the use of separate registers for public discourse, dailylanguage and specific rites, such as puberty rites. In the remaining part of this section,the example sentences will be given in their non-syncopated forms, as they are presentedin the sources. Cuna is an agglutinating, predominantly suffixing language. The occurrence of pre-fixes is limited to the function of indicating a difference in verbal valency. There arematching pairs of transitive and intransitive verbs differentiated by the initial vowel, e- forthe transitives and a- or zero for the intransitives (12)(13).9 In addition, causativisationcan be indicated by means of a prefix o- (14). (12) kw ane e-kw ane ‘to fall (of fruit)’ ‘to drop (fruit)’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 24) (13) a-tinne e-tinne10 ‘to get tied’ ‘to tie’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 24) (14) purkw e o-purkw e ‘to die’ ‘to kill’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 25) Verbal morphology expressed by suffixes includes voice (passive), tense, number anddirectionality. In addition to the directional suffixes, there is a set of verb stems referringto direction. These directional verb stems can be either affixed or used as main verbs 9 This situation is reminiscent of similar paired categories in Chiquitano (see section 4.13.3).10 Llerena Villalobos (2000: 71) gives a phonetic representation [ett´nne] for this form, suggesting ı a geminating effect of the prefix.
  • 90. 2.5 Cuna 65themselves. Even when affixed, they frequently combine with the directional suffixes,as illustrated in (11) and (15). (15) se-tani-kki carry-come-H ‘He came to bring it.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 29) Another set of stems combine the functions of bodily posture with durative aspectand ‘to be’. They can be used either as main verbs or as affixed auxiliaries. For instance,in (16) the stem kw iˇ i indicates that the subject performs his action standing. c (16) we sunmakke-kw iˇ i-t sayla ospino c this speak-stand-N chief Ospino ‘The one who stands there talking is chief Ospino.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 130) As in Chocoan, personal reference is not expressed morphologically. Subject andobject (with verbs) and possessor (with nouns) are all indicated by the same uninflectedpersonal pronouns an ‘first person’, pe ‘second person’ and e ‘third person’ (LlerenaVillalobos 1987: 63–4). Third-person subject is often omitted. The corresponding pluralforms are obtained by adding the universal pluraliser -mala, and dual forms by adding-po ‘two’. The personal pronouns accompany verbs on an SOV order basis. When usedas possessive pronouns, they must precede the head noun immediately. The same holdsfor the demonstrative pronouns we ‘this’ and a ‘that’. It should be observed that not allauthors agree as to the status of the personal and demonstrative pronouns. Holmer (1946,1951) treats them as prefixes, thus expanding the prefix inventory of the language, butmakes an exception for the plural forms an-mal(a) ‘we’, pe-mal(a) ‘you (plural)’, whichare clearly independent forms. Adjectives and numerals follow their heads, again as inChocoan. Cuna has several relational suffixes which together divide the oblique case functions.For instance, -kala indicates possession, destination and beneficiary; -kine locative,ablative, instrument and cause. (17) an maˇ i sayla-kala kue-oe c I son chief-DA become-F ‘My son will be a chief.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 47) (18) akkw a-kine makke-sa-mala stone-IS hit-PA-PL ‘They hit him with a stone.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 53)
  • 91. 66 2 The Chibcha Sphere Cuna has a series of numeral classifiers based mainly on shapes and measures (Sherzer1978). Even though there are special classifiers for fish and personal adornments, there isnone for human beings. These are classified among the long objects (wala- ∼ war-). Thenumerals and the stem for ‘how many?’ (-pikw a) are suffixed to the numeral classifier,which itself follows the noun it classifies, as in (19): (19) maˇ i-mala wala-pikw a pe nikka c son-PL CL-how.many you have ‘How many children do you have?’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 67) Cuna has a great variety of compounds, including verb–verb compounds and combina-tions of verbs with an incorporated object; e.g. mas-kunne ‘to eat’ (from masi ‘banana’,‘food’ and kunne ‘to chew’); kap-takke ‘to dream’ (from kape ‘to sleep’ and takke‘to see’) (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 25–6). A more complex form is op-nake-t-akkw a‘millstone’ (from opa ‘maize’; nake- ‘to grind’; -t ‘nominaliser’, and akkw a ‘stone’)(Llerena Villalobos 1987: 37). There are borrowed words not only from Spanish (kannira‘chicken’, from Sp. gallina), but also from English; e.g. mani ‘money’; waˇ i ‘time, chour (watch)’. 2.6 The languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa MartaThe languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, also known as the Arhuacan lan-guages (not to be confused with Arawakan; cf. Shafer 1962), form a group of mutuallyrelated languages of undisputed Chibchan affiliation. There are three living languages,which are known under several names. The Ika language is spoken in the southern partof the mountain massif (departments of Cesar and Magdalena) by some 14,000 peoplealso known as Arhuaco or B´ntukua (Arango and S´ nchez 1998). The Ika are well known ı afor their dynamic organisation and level of political awareness. Their principal centreis the town of Nabus´make (former San Sebasti´ n de R´ bago). North of the Ika, in the ı a ahighest part of the Sierra Nevada (departments of Cesar, La Guajira and Magdalena),some 9,000 traditional Kogui or K´ ggaba are speakers of the Kogui language, called aKougian in Kogui, and Peibu in Ika (Frank 1990: 41). The Kogui are an individualis-tic people, known for their inaccessibility and religious conservatism. Their principalceremonial centre is Macotama. The third language of the Sierra Nevada, Damana, isfound in the eastern and northeastern part of the Sierra Nevada (departments of Cesarand la Guajira). The approximately 2,000 speakers of Damana are less numerous thanthe Ika and the Kogui. As an ethnic group they are known by no less than six dif-ferent names: Arsario, Guamaca, Malayo, Marocasero, Sanj´ or Sank´ , and Wiwa; a asee Trillos Amaya (1989: 15–17) for a discussion of the respective merits of all thesenames.
  • 92. 2.6 Languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 67 In spite of the fact that the Sierra Nevada people have been successful in preserv-ing their languages and traditions, they have felt the constant pressure of non-nativecolonisation. In addition to the three nations mentioned so far, a fourth group theKankuamo, located near the town of At´ nquez (Cesar) lost its identity in the twen- atieth century. Its language, Kanku´, closely related to Damana, is no longer spoken, ıalthough some people claim knowledge of it (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000). In order to escapecolonisation and preserve their secluded life the Kogui have had to abandon most of thelower strata of their original habitat. The sixteenth-century Tairona, who occupied thearea east of Santa Marta, were almost certainly part of the Arhuacan culture complex.It is likely that survivors of the Tairona group sought refuge with the Kogui after theirdefeat in 1600. It is not known to what extent the languages spoken by the Kogui andTairona differed. The religious leaders of the Kogui claim knowledge of a ceremoniallanguage called T´ iˇua, and it is tempting to interpret this as a relict of Tairona. Land- ezaburu (1994: 375) mentions that the speakers of Damana also have a sacred languagecalled Terruna shayama. The survival of the cultural and linguistic identity of the Arhuacan peoples is largelydue to the strength of their traditional authorities and spiritual leaders, the mama (‘grand-fathers’), who distribute their knowledge at ceremonial temples known as kankurua.11They have successfully fought the influence from outside, in particular, missionary ac-tivity. The native languages are part of the traditional values they seek to protect. At thesame time, mama refuse to take part in formal education (Trillos Amaya 2000: 750).Some actively discourage the learning of Spanish, in particular by women. On the otherhand, multilingualism seems to be the rule in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Due tomixed marriages and contact, many people speak several languages (especially Damanaand Kogui), and some know as many as four languages. Since the pioneering work by Celed´ n (1886), Preuss (1921–5), Holmer (1953) and oReichel-Dolmatoff (1950–1, 1989), the study of the Arhuacan languages has developedconsiderably. The Ika language has been the object of studies by Frank (1985, 1990)and Landaburu (1988, 1992, 1996b, 2000a). The Damana language is treated in TrillosAmaya (1989, 1994, 1999, 2000). There are partial studies of Kogui in Ortiz Ricaurte(1989, 1994, 2000) and in Olaya Perdomo (2000). Each of the three languages of theSierra Nevada de Santa Marta has a clearly distinct character. Among them, the Koguilanguage is most conservative and particularly well suited for historical comparisonwith other Chibchan languages. Its nominal derivational morphology, involving severalold classifying elements, is quite elaborate; see Ortiz Ricaurte (2000) for an inventory.11 K nkurwa, an Ika word; cf. Landaburu (1988: 163) and Trillos Amaya (2000: 749).
  • 93. 68 2 The Chibcha SphereTable 2.3 Overview of the consonant inventories of the Arhuacanlanguages Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar GlottalStops Voiceless p t k ʔ**** Voiced b d gAffricates Voiceless c ˇ Voiced dz * ˇFricatives Voiceless s s** ˇ h** Voiced w z z ˇNasals m n [ŋ]*****Vibrants Simple r* Multiple rr***Laterals l*** not in Kogui, ** marginal or absent in Ika, *** only in Damana, **** not inDamana, ***** only in IkaHowever, many of the characteristics that are of interest in a general survey like thepresent one coincide and, therefore, justify a combined treatment. All the Arhuacan languages have voiceless and voiced stops: p, b; t, d; k, g (intervocalick is realised as a fricative [x] in Kogui). They also distinguish between voiceless andvoiced alveodental sibilants: s, z. The distinction between voiceless and voiced palatalsibilants (ˇ, z) is found in all three languages, with the observation that s is marginal in s ˇ ˇIka. Furthermore, a voiceless palatal affricate c occurs in all three languages, its voiced ˇcounterpart d z being limited to Damana and Ika. The glottal stop (ʔ ) plays an important ˇrole in Ika, a marginal one in Kogui, and it is absent from Damana. Conversely, the velaror glottal fricative h is frequent in Damana and Kogui, but marginal in Ika. As far asthe vibrants and laterals are concerned, Damana stands out with three distinct sounds:lateral l, simple vibrant r, and multiple vibrant rr. Ika only has r, and Kogui only has l.All three languages have labial and alveodental nasals (m, n); the latter assimilates to thearticulation place of a following stop. In Ika the velar nasal ŋ can occur between vowelsat morpheme boundaries, and may thus be interpreted as a separate, albeit peripheralphoneme. Ika has a bilabial approximant w, which is pronounced fricatively [β], exceptbefore a. It is also found in Damana, where a fricative realisation obtains betweenvowels. Its absence from the consonant inventory of Kogui (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000) seemsto be the result of different analyses; cf. Ika wak , Kogui uaka [w´ xa] ‘fish’. Table 2.3 acontains a combined representation of the consonant inventories of Damana, Ika andKogui. Consonant clusters can be found in initial position (stop + r in Ika; sibilant + stopin Kogui). In these cases there is often a suppressed vowel that can be restored even
  • 94. 2.6 Languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 69synchronically. All Arhuacan languages have labiovelar consonants (kw , gw ). These aregenerally not treated as separate phonemes in the available descriptions, but as consonantclusters or consonant–vowel sequences. In Ika most syllable-final stops are disallowed,and the number of consonant-clusters is limited. Prevocalic k in Ika often correspondswith a glottal stop in word- or syllable-final position, e.g. nak-a ‘to come’ (perfectiveparticiple) vs. naʔ (indefinite participle) (Landaburu 2000: 743); cf. also Ika aʔn ‘stone’,Kogui hag-, hagi; Ika kaʔ ‘earth’, Kogui kag-, kagi. The vowel inventory is basically the same in all three languages and consists of sixbasic vowels: a, e, i, o, u and a sixth vowel , which has been described as a centralvowel [ə] in Damana and in Ika, and as an unrounded high back vowel [ ] in Kogui. ForIka, Frank (1990) recognises two central vowels, high central and mid central [ə],instead of one, but admits that their distribution is largely predictable. Damana has anadditional nasal vowel u of unclear status (Trillos Amaya 2000: 751). Vocalic nasality ˜is also found in Kogui, where it is limited to a small number of instances (e.g. hay˜ u´‘coca’), including very few minimal pairs (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000: 760). Stress is largelypredictable in Damana and Ika, but distinctive in Kogui. The morphophonology and morphosyntax of the Arhuacan languages stand out onaccount of their great complexity and highly unusual character. In the context of thischapter we can only mention a few examples, referring to the literature mentioned abovefor a fuller picture. The Arhuacan languages are mainly verb-final with a preferred wordorder of subject–object–verb. Adjectives follow the substantive they modify, whereasgenitive modifiers and possessors precede it. In Ika many adjectives in postnominalmodifier position are followed by a nominalised verb kaw-a ‘seeming’ in a sort ofadjective phrase reminiscent of a relative clause. (20) dˇ e k kaw-a z water cold seem-N ‘cold water’ (Frank 1990: 32) Nouns and noun phrases can receive case markers, as illustrated by the followingexample from Damana, where -ˇe indicates genitive and -rga allative case: z (21) ra-n-ˇ e ade te-rga z I-EU-G father field-AL ‘My father is in the field (has gone to the field).’ (Trillos Amaya 2000: 753) Pronominal possession is often expressed by a genitive phrase. In addition, prefixedpossessive markers indicating personal reference also occur. Prefixed possessives are fre-quently found with kinship terms, but not exclusively. Kogui, for instance, has two waysto express the notion ‘my house’, with a prefix and by means of a genitive construction;see example (22). The full word form for ‘house’, hu-´, contains a petrified suffix element ı
  • 95. 70 2 The Chibcha Sphere-´, which can be suppressed both in compounds (e.g. h´ -kala ‘roof of house’) and in ı u 12inflected forms (e.g. na-h´ ). u (22) na-hu ´ na-h´ hu-´ ı ı 1P.SG-house 1.SG-G house-LS ‘my house’ ‘my house’ (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000: 765) Subject and object are not obligatorily marked for case. Nevertheless, Ika has a locativecase marker -seʔ, which can be added to the agent–subject of a transitive verb in anergative function. This marker can remove doubts as to which constituent plays therole of subject in a transitive construction. It is used, for instance, when the subjectstands immediately before the verb, either because there is no overtly expressed object,or because the prevalent SOV order has been modified for pragmatic or other reasons.The marker -seʔ is frequently found in combination with a topicalising suffix -ri. For anextensive discussion of the use of both suffixes see Frank (1990: 115–34). (23) maikə n per -ri ∅-kə -g-a na gw iadz ina-seʔ -ri ə ə ˇ ʔ 13 three dog-TO 3O-DA-eat-N be/past puma-E-TO ‘The puma ate his three dogs.’ (Frank 1990: 116) Verbs in Arhuacan languages often exhibit a set of competing stems which can differin their final consonants and internal vowels. Several types of nominalised and non-finite verb forms are derived from these stems. The morphosyntax of the Arhuacanlanguages is furthermore characterised by an extensive use of auxiliary verbs, whichmay appear in strings following a main verb. The choice of the appropriate form both fornon-independent main verbs and for auxiliaries depends on the auxiliary that follows.In Ika the verb phrase is regularly ended by a suffix indicating the epistemic status ofthe sentence (validation), whereas in Kogui prefixes fulfill such a role. Auxiliary verbs may carry the morphology that cannot be accomodated on the mainverb, but in other cases their presence is merely pragmatic or serves the purpose ofrefining temporal and aspectual distinctions. A characteristic case in which a morpho-logical element is transferred from the main verb to an auxiliary is negation. In Ika thenegative marker -uʔ is suffixed to the root of a main verb, creating some sort of negativeparticiple; the latter is followed by a form of nan ‘to be’. In example (24) the main verb12 The bound form hu- coincides with a widespread Chibchan root for ‘house’. The conservative character of Kogui appears clearly in the Chibchan reconstructions presented in Constenla Uma˜ a (1993: 111–13). For the suffix -´ see also Constenla Uma˜ a (1981: 362). n ı n13 The element na has received two interpretations, (1) that of a ‘distal’ past marker (Frank 1990: 63–4); and (2) that of a nominalised form of the verb nan ‘to be’. According to Landaburu (2000), it acts as an auxiliary verb in indefinite past forms.
  • 96. 2.6 Languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 71is cwa ‘to see’; when -uʔ is attached to it, it becomes c-uʔ. Before the suffix -w- the ˇ ˇ 14appropriate stem for the auxilary verb ‘to be’ is nar-. ˇ ʔ (24) c-uʔ nar-w-in see-NE be-1S.SG-DV ‘I do not see.’ (Landaburu 2000: 743) The expression in (24) can be made more complex by adding a form of the auxiliaryverb u/aw- ‘to do’, ‘to have’, as in (25). The negative participle of u/aw- is a-uʔ: ʔ (25) cwa a-uʔ nar-w-in ˇ see have-NE be-1S.SG-DV ‘I have not seen.’ (Landaburu 2000: 743) Personal reference marking in the Arhuacan languages is remarkable for the num-ber of syntactic roles that can be expressed. In Ika Landaburu (1992: 12; 2000a: 740)distinguishes as many as five formal possibilities. These are subject, direct object (ac-cusative), indirect object (dative), beneficiary and possession acted upon. Non-subjectpersonal reference is indicated by means of prefixes. The latter consist of more or lessconstant elements accompanied by an additional marker identifying the syntactic role(dative, beneficiary, etc.). Fusion of the respective elements occurs. The non-subject rolescan be expressed in combination with the subject role, but they cannot be combined witheach other within a single verb form. The distinction between non-subject roles in theverb form is all the more important due to the fact that many Arhuacan verbs are im-personal, their main participant being encoded as accusative, dative, etc. Example (26)from Damana illustrates the combined use of subject and accusative markers. (26) m -n -paˇ-ka s 2S.SG-1O.SG-beat-FM.2S.SG ‘You beat me.’ (Trillos Amaya 1989: 54) The subject marker in (26) is a prefix, but it is accompanied in Damana by a suffix -ka(-ga after monosyllabic roots beginning with k, z or z), which plays an accessory role ˇin the identification of the subject. Its primary function is that of a marker of a factualmood, indicating the general validity of the stated event. It varies according to person andnumber, the form -ka being limited to third-person subjects and second-person-singularsubjects. Dative marking with an impersonal verb (ˇ n- ‘to dream’) is illustrated in (27). z14 In Landaburu’s analysis, the reference of -w- to a first-person-singular subject is not the primary, but rather a derived function of that suffix, which he defines as an ‘intralocutive’. It denotes a combination of speaker–subject and present tense. After roots ending in -k/-ʔ its allomorph is -kw -; see example (30) below.
  • 97. 72 2 The Chibcha SphereThe choice of the prefix mi- identifies it as dative, not accusative; there is no specialmarker for third-person subject. (27) mi-n-ˇ n-ga z 2.SG.DA-EU-dream-FM.3S ‘You dream.’ (lit. ‘Dream comes to you.’) (Trillos Amaya 1989: 54) A comparable example from Kogui (28) shows the use of a special dative marker -k-,which follows the person marker. The impersonal verb is nuni ‘to want’. The initial nof the stem changes to l according to a frequent morphophonemic rule of the Koguilanguage. (28) big´za na-k-luni ıˇ ´ pineapple 1O.SG-DA-want ‘I want a pineapple.’ (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000: 774) Accusative marking with an impersonal verb can be observed in example (29) fromIka. It is followed by (30), which illustrates a verb form with a beneficiary marker.(The auxiliary verb nuk (∼nuʔ ) ‘to be’ in combination with the nominalisation in - nexpresses a progressive form.) The future tense in Ika is expressed by an impersonalauxiliary verb -ŋgw a. It obligatorily takes an accusative object marker that refers to theactor. The auxiliary verb -ŋgw a is preceded by the imperfective participle (in - n) of theverb it dominates (31). ʔ (29) n-aʔ tikuma na 1O.SG-forget be/past ‘I forgot.’ (Frank 1990: 9) (30) akusa win-i-zas- n nuʔ -kw -in ʔ [Spanish aguja ‘needle’] needle 3O.PL-BN-save-N be-1S.SG-DV ‘I am saving needles for them.’ (Frank 1990: 71) (31) pinna dz una was- n n -ŋgw a ˇ ŋ all kind chase-N 1O.SG-F ‘I will chase all kinds (of animals).’ (Frank 1990: 61) The interplay of prefixes and suffixes referring to person of subject is illustrated in(32) by means of the factual (habitual) mood paradigm of the verb buˇ- ‘to spin’ in sDamana (Trillos Amaya 1989: 87):
  • 98. 2.6 Languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 73 (32) 1S.SG buˇ-uga s ‘I spin’ 1S.PL buˇ-kurra s ‘we spin’ 2S.SG m -buˇ-ka s ‘you (sg.) spin’ 2S.PL m -buˇ-kw a s ‘you (pl.) spin’ 3S.SG buˇ-ka s ‘he/she spins’ 3S.PL yi-buˇ-ka s ‘they spin’ The Damana affixes for virtual (non-realised) and real (realised) mood are insertedbetween the root and the variable suffix, as in buˇ- n-kurra ‘we may spin’ or m -buˇ- s san-ka ‘you spun’. In Ika the interplay of subject-marking prefixes and corresponding suffixes that alsoconvey such meaning is even more subtle, because the latter are selected on the basisof deictic distinctions involving both personal reference and tense. Further temporaldistinctions are made explicit by variation in the stems to which the suffixes can beattached. For a detailed discussion of this complicated part of Ika verbal morphologysee Landaburu (1988, 1992, 2000a); cf. also Frank (1990: 63–6). The system of Damana and Ika pronouns and object markers is based on the distinctionof three persons and singular or plural number. At the least in its set of possessive markersKogui expresses a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural. Theform s n- ‘our (exclusive)’ reflects a Chibchan first-person-plural marker not recorded inthe other Arhuacan languages.15 Its inclusive counterpart na-wi- is the regularly derivedplural of the first-person-singular marker na-. In other contexts the element s n- is usedindistinctively both for inclusive and exclusive (33). (33) gaik´ -li ni ub´sa s n-ka-l´ i a ıˇ a snow.mountain-L water much 1O.PL-DA-be ‘On the snow-capped mountain we have a lot of water.’ (Olaya Perdomo 2000: 782) Some valency-changing processes show a clear affinity with other Chibchan lan-guages (cf. section 2.5 on Cuna). It is the case in example (34), where u- is a transitiviser,and (35), where a- is an intransitiviser.16 The examples are from Kogui. (The substi-tution of stem-initial consonants is part of a regular morphophonemic alternation; cf.also (28).)15 ´ Constenla Uma˜ a (1981: 430) reconstructs *seʔ for Proto-Chibchan on the basis of the n ˜ Talamancan (Costa Rican) languages Bribri, Cab´ car and T´ rraba. e e16 A Chibchan language of Central America (Honduras) that uses the prefix u- as a transitiviser is Paya (see Holt 1989).
  • 99. 74 2 The Chibcha Sphere (34) n´ si aˇ ‘to come’ u-l´ si aˇ ‘to bring’ (Olaya Perdomo 2000: 781) w (35) g asi ´ˇ ‘to kill’ a-kw asi ´ˇ ‘to kill oneself’ (Constenla Uma˜ a 1990: 117) n In Ika causative derivation can be achieved by adding a suffix -s- to the root, usuallyin combination with further morphophonemic adaptations; cf. (36) and (37). Anotherstrategy consists in raising the root-vowel with simultaneous replacement of root-final-n- by -ŋ- (Frank 1990: 66–7); cf. (38). (36) k mma- ‘to sleep’ k mma-s- ‘to cause to sleep’ (37) aruk- ‘to go up’ aru-s- ‘to lift’ (38) con- ˇ ‘to enter’ ˇ ŋ cuŋ- ‘to let someone enter’ Also in relation to Ika, Frank (1990: 55) lists a series of transitive verbs differingsemantically by the shape of the object that is handled (39). Similarly, intransitive verbsreferring to position may differ according to the shape of the subject (40). (39) gaka ‘to place long and thin objects’ sa ‘to place three-dimensional objects’ pan ‘to place flat objects’ ˇ ʔ coʔ ‘to place things with an upright position’ (40) aʔ -gei-kw a ʔ ‘to be in (of long objects)’ aʔ -p n-kw a ʔ ‘to be in (of flat objects)’ aʔ -ni-kw a ʔ ‘to be in (of three-dimensional objects)’ ʔ aʔ -nuk ‘to be in (of upright objects)’ Arhuacan languages have fully developed numeral systems formed on a decimal basis.As Constenla Uma˜ a (1988) has pointed out, some of the Arhuacan numerals contain npetrified classifier elements also found in other Chibchan languages. One of them is*kw a2 ‘seed’, for instance, in Kogui m´ igw a ‘three’, k´ gw a ‘seven’, ugw a ‘ten’, m´ zugw a a u ´ uˇ‘twenty’. The Arhuacan languages have several lexical borrowings from Spanish, some ofwhich are quite old. An example is Damana turruma, Kogui tuluma, from Spanishturma, an early term for ‘potato’ that was widely used in New Granada. Damana galina[galy ina] ‘chicken’ (Spanish gallina) and paka ‘cow’ (Spanish vaca) are evident loans.In spite of their isolation the Kogui have adopted a few characteristic loan words, suchas k´ lta ‘book’, ‘paper’ (from Spanish carta) and gw´bu ‘egg’ (from Spanish huevo). a ıA very important cultural term is kw´bulu or kw´bulo, which refers to the traditional ı ıKogui village. Although it is perfectly adapted to Kogui pronunciation, it does not seemfar-fetched to derive its etymology from Spanish pueblo ‘village’.
  • 100. 2.7 Chimila 75 2.7 ChimilaThe Chimila language (or Ette Taara) is spoken by the descendants of a once numerouspopulation (Ette Ennaka) inhabiting the space situated between the lower Magdalenariver to the west and southwest, and the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the Cesarriver to the east. The strategic centre of the Chimila homeland was formed by theAriguan´ river valley, which constitutes the border of the modern departments of Cesar ıand Magdalena. During the conquest the Chimila were much feared because of theiruse of poisoned arrows. They were referred to as ‘Caribs’ (Hemming 1978: 70; cf.section 2.1). In reality, the Chimila speak a language of the Chibchan family. About 1720 the Chimila people, exasperated by the excesses of colonisation, begana guerrilla war that was conducted with great cruelty on both sides (Chaves et al. 1995:127–34). Although this war reached its highest intensity in the eighteenth century, ruth-less violence against the Chimila aiming at their extermination continued until well intothe twentieth century. In 1990 the last traumatised and largely assimilated survivors wereassigned a small reservation called Issa Oristuna, near San Angel (Magdalena), whichharbours some eighty families (Trillos Amaya 1997: 25). The language, which had beenpractised in secret for a long time, is now spoken more openly, but field research is stilldifficult due to the Chimila’s understandable distrust of outsiders. The total number ofChimila is estimated at 900 (Arango and S´ nchez 1998). a In 1947 the anthropologist Reichel-Dolmatoff published an article on the Chimilalanguage, summarised in Mel´ ndez Lozano (2000a). The information on Chimila con- etained in the present study is based on Trillos Amaya (1997). She provides a very goodand honest impression of the language, admitting that many of the analyses offeredmust remain provisional for lack of data. Trillos Amaya respected the restrictions set bythe community upon her fieldwork in the expectation of a more open attitude that maydevelop over the coming years. The phonology of Chimila still retains several unsolved questions. According to TrillosAmaya (1997: 66), its five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) can be short, long, interrupted (glottalised)and aspirated. Monosyllabic words ending in a long vowel can bear contrastive tone, e.g.t´ : ‘maraca (a musical instrument)’ with rising tone, versus t` : ‘heart’ with descending o otone. Polysyllabic words contain a tone-bearing syllable of which the tone appears tobe partly determined by the nature of a following consonant (descending tone beforegeminates and r, rising tone before non-geminate obstruents). In Trillos Amaya’s study,tonal distinctions are not indicated except for a few relevant pairs in the phonologicalchapter (Trillos Amaya 1997: 75–6). The consonant inventory comprises a series of voiceless oral stops and affricates (p,t, c, k), a prenasalised series (m b, n d, n d z , ŋg) and a nasal series (m, n, ny , ŋ). In addition, ˇ ˇthere is a voiced stop (g) and a voiced affricate (d z ). All these oppositions are fairly ˇwell exploited, e.g. ka: ‘breast’, ga: ‘excrement’, ŋga: ‘wing, feather’, ŋa: ‘to hoist up’, `
  • 101. 76 2 The Chibcha Sphereŋa: ‘to lie down’. All the velar sounds have labiovelar counterparts (kw , gw , ŋw , ŋgw ) ´The remaining consonants are a lateral l, a preglottalised tap r, the laminal and velarfricatives s and h, and an approximant w. Syllable-initial consonant clusters may consistof a stop + r. In clusters after velar consonants r is pronounced as a uvular trill. Most consonants (not the prenasalised ones, and not h, r, w) have tense or geminatecounterparts. Gemination appears to be an automatic process, occurring after a stressedshort vowel. Nevertheless, gemination is sometimes found more than once in a word(even in consecutive syllables), and Trillos Amaya mentions the case of suffix pairs inwhich gemination appears to be contrastive, as in (41): (41) ki:ro-tikw i ki:ro-tikkw i chicken-PL.DI chicken-not.fully.grown ‘small chickens’ ‘small chick’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 75) The interaction between gemination, vowel length, accent and tone in Chimila is afield that requires further investigation. Some of these aspects are discussed in Malone(1997–8). As might be expected, Chimila shares a number of characteristics with the relatedlanguages of the Arhuacan group, with which it has been in contact over centuries. Asin Ika, some verbs exhibit internal stem variation depending on the affixes with whichthey are combined. (42) kenne-riddz a ˇ konni-ddz a ˇ eat-AG eat-PS.N ‘eater’ ‘food’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 83–4) Most conspicuous among these similarities is the use of a set of auxiliary verbs, whichfollow nominalised or otherwise non-finite main verbs. The selection of a particularauxiliary verb (here glossed as ‘be’ or ‘do’) may reflect tense or mood distinctions,but in many cases there appears to be no clear semantic distinction that determines thechoice. The matter requires further research. Finite verbs must either be specified asdeclarative or interrogative. The following examples illustrate the use of auxiliaries andthe declarative marker -(t)te. ∅ (43) hoggw a17 ŋa-∅-tte bathe be-3S.SG-DV ‘He bathes.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 157)17 Trillos Amaya suggests that the final vowel in a full verb, such as hoggw a, has an aspectual function. Note that verbs such as hoggw a in constructions with an auxiliary verb must also be nominalised. If not, it may be necessary to reinterpret the auxiliary verb stems as suffixes. Considering that the relevant information is imprecise and insufficient, we will not represent aspect and (covert) nominalisation in our glosses.
  • 102. 2.7 Chimila 77 Table 2.4 Possessive modifiers in Chimila (from Trillos Amaya 1997: 126) Singular Dual Plural 1 pers. naʔ na na-ra 2 pers. maʔ ma ma-ra 3 pers. nih ni nih -ne ∅ (44) hoggw a dz a-∅-tte ˇ bathe do-3S.SG-DV ‘He will bathe’. (Trillos Amaya 1997: 157) When directly affixed to a noun, the declarative marker -(t)te indicates that the nounis used predicatively (45). (45) iŋŋa-te ŋ smoke-DV ‘It is smoke.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 161) In contrast to the Arhuacan languages, Chimila is predominantly or entirely suffixing.The language has a set of possessive personal reference markers, which are prefix-likeelements encoding the distinctions of first, second and third person, as well as singular,dual and plural number. In spite of the syntactic limitations, there are arguments to consider these possessivemarkers as free forms, rather than as prefixes. As a matter of fact, a numeral can intervenebetween a possessive marker and the noun it modifies (46).18 (46) naʔ m buh na oggw e 1P.SG two child ‘my two children’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 141) Possessive constructions are obtained by the juxtaposition of a possessive marker, thepossessed and the possessor in that order. No genitive case marker occurs. (47) nih oggw e taki:riddz aʔ o ˇ 3P.SG child chief ‘the son of the chief’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 127) In the verb personal reference and number are indicated by means of suffixes. Thesesuffixes bear no formal relationship to the possessive markers. There are different sets18 Compare the case of the Araucanian possessive markers in chapter 5.
  • 103. 78 2 The Chibcha SphereTable 2.5 Personal reference markers for subject and object in Chimila (based onTrillos Amaya 1997: 123, 125, 163) Subject markers Subject markers in negation Object markers Singular Dual Plural Singular Non-singular Singular Non-singular1 -n -ŋ kre -ŋ kre-m bre -na -na-ŋ kre -nu -nu-ra2 -uka -uka-ra -uka-ra-m bre -ka -ka-ra -dz u ∼ -ˇ u ˇ c -dz u-ra ˇ3 -Ø -(n)ne -(n)ne-m bre -Ø -ne -wi -(n)nefor the identification of subject and object, respectively. In addition, there is a sep-arate set of personal reference markers used to indicate the subject in a negation.Table 2.5 represents the three sets of verbal personal markers that refer to subject andobject. As can be seen in table 2.5, the category plural for subject markers is systematicallydistinguished from the dual by the addition of a plural marker -m bre. This marker -m breis also used to indicate plural with nouns. It can be left out, so that the difference betweenplural and dual is not always overtly expressed. In the third person plural the order ofthe suffixes represented in table 2.5 is not always respected, for instance, in dz uŋŋa- ˇm bre-nne-tte ‘they (more than two) walk’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 123). The elements-ŋkre, -ra and -(n)ne are non-singular markers, with functions limited to the pronominalsystem. Object markers have only been found in verbs with a third-person subject (49). Thescarce examples of use recorded so far do not yet allow a full appreciation of thepossibilities. In negative sentences personal reference markers referring to first- andsecond-person subject are attached to the adverbial negation marker d z umma, not to the ˇverb itself (50). By contrast, the third-person non-singular marker -ne is attached to themain verb, not to the negative adverb d z umma (51). ˇ (48) kenne ka-uka-ra-tte eat be-2S-D-DV ‘The two of you eat.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 124) ˇ ˇ ˇ ∅ (49) ce:-ri seddz a koʔ -dz u-∅-tte money-DA give be-2O-3S.SG-DV ‘He gave you money.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 109) (50) dz umma-ka dz uŋŋa ˇ ˇ ŋ not-2S.SG walk ‘You do not walk.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 163)
  • 104. 2.7 Chimila 79 (51) dz umma dz uŋŋa-ne ˇ ˇ ŋ not walk-3S.PL ‘They do not walk.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 163) The noun morphology of Chimila displays an elaborate inventory of case markers andpostpositions with a particular emphasis on spatial distinctions and types of association.Strings of case markers referring to spatial relations occur; in (52), for instance, the casemarker -ŋ a refers to ‘action within a space’, whereas -(s)sa implies a previous motioninto that space. ŋ ∅ (52) ummaŋenta ka-∅-tte assu n diddz o-ŋa-ssa ˇ ŋ become.quiet be-3S-DV only rain-L-AL ‘He only became quiet under the rain.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 115) Both subject and object can remain unmarked in a constituent order which is predom-inantly SVO. An ergative–dative case marker -ri is available for the purpose of markingoff the actor of a transitive verb from its object, as illustrated in (53). However, in (49) wehave seen that -ri can also mark a direct object, when there is no independent expressionof either the subject or a dative. The matter requires further investigation. ∅ (53) noggw e-ri assu tukku wi-∅-tte kawi-manta he-E only see do-3S-DV cabildo-LS ‘He only saw the cabildo.’19 (Trillos Amaya 1997: 108) Chimila has a set of numeral classifiers: gwa- for round objects; ti:- for long objects;kra:- for corncobs; m bri:- for animals and clothing. As in Cuna, these are prefixed tothe numerals. (54) ti:-muh na CL-two ‘two pencils, bananas, etc.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 139) (55) m bri:-mah na CL-three ‘three animals, clothes, etc.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 139) The Chibchan affinity with Chimila is not only clearly evident from its lexicon, butalso from its frequent use of the lexical suffixes -kw a/-gw a and -kra; for instance, inkak-kw a ‘mouth’, wa:-kw a ‘eye’, rug-gw a ‘neck’; ha:-kra ‘head’, kik-kra ‘bone’. These19 Cabildo: traditional administrative board of an indigenous community. The element -manta is translated as ‘skin’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 86–8). Its function in this particular context remains obscure.
  • 105. 80 2 The Chibcha Sphereelements reflect the classifiers *kua2 ‘seed’ and *kara3 ‘bone, stick’ reconstructed forthe proto-language by Constenla Uma˜ a (1990).20 n 2.8 Bar´ ıThe Bar´ or Dobocub´ occupy an area at the border between Colombia and Venezuela ı ıcorresponding to the southern part of the Sierra de Perij´ (department of Norte de aSantander in Colombia and state of Zulia in Venezuela). Together with their neighboursto the north, the Cariban Yukpa, the Bar´ were traditionally referred to as Motilones ı‘shaven heads’. Due to their hostile attitude towards outsiders and, among other things,their resistance to oil prospectors working in the area, the Bar´ were known as Motilones ıbravos ‘wild Motilones’ in contrast to the Yukpa, who were called mansos ‘tame’. TheBar´ inhabit thirteen villages on the Colombian side, as well as a number of villages ıin Venezuela. In Colombia their number is estimated at approximately 3,500 (Arangoand S´ nchez 1998). The Bar´ language, which belongs to the Chibchan family, has only a ırecently begun to be studied (Mogoll´ n P´ rez 2000). The vocabularies of Catarroja and o eGuti´ rrez published by Rivet and Armellada (1950) have only a few words in common ewith the more recently collected data. Like its Proto-Chibchan ancestor, Bar´ is a tonal language. Two basic tone levels, ılow and non-low, are distinguished. The non-low tone is subject to some subtonemicvariation. No examples are provided of tonal contrast between vowels that are part ofthe same root. (56) k´ bbu ‘he sleeps’ a ´ k` bbu ‘heron’ a ` (Mogoll´ n P´ rez 2000: 724) o e Noun phrases display special internal tonal patterns, which suggest grammatical func-tions such as ‘genitive’ or ‘subordination’. No further grammatical markers specifyingthe relation appear to be used. Modifiers precede the modified in a genitive construction,but follow their heads in a noun–adjective combination. (57) c´duu abb´ ˇı ´ ´ ´ ı [ˇ¯d¯ : abb¯] cı u ¯ ı snake blood ‘snake blood’ (Mogoll´ n P´ rez 2000: 724) o e (58) c´duu abb`` ˇ ı ´ ´ ` ıı [ˇ¯d¯ : abb¯`] cı u ` ı: snake big ‘big snake’ (Mogoll´ n P´ rez 2000: 724) o e20 The superscript numbers 2 and 3 in the reconstructed forms refer to mid and high tone, respec- tively (Constenla Uma˜ a 1989: 37). n
  • 106. 2.9 The Muisca language 81 The Bar´ language distinguishes six oral (a, e, i, , o, u) and six nasal vowels (˜ , e, ˜, ˜, ı a ˜˜ ˜o, u). Long vowels are interpreted by Mogoll´ n P´ rez as sequences of same vowels and o etone-bearing segments, rather than as single phonemes. Bar´ has a small, asymmetrical ıconsonant inventory, which consists of four stops (b, t, d, k), two fricatives (h, s), one truenasal (m), a multiple vibrant (rr), and two variable resonants. In Mogoll´ n P´ rez (2000) o e ythese resonants were classified as nasals (n, n ). However, a fully nasal realisation ([n],[ny ]) is found in one specific environment only, namely, in word-initial position before anasal vowel. Elsewhere, they are either oral ([r], [y]), or slightly nasalised. As a matter offact, the least environmentally influenced allophones of the two resonant phonemes arenon-nasal; e.g. in /ny inu/ [yiru] ‘yesterday’. The opposition of the alveodental resonant[r], which is found between two oral vowels, and the multiple vibrant rr is that oftwo vibrants; e.g. /kinu/ [kiru] ‘to spin’ versus /kiru/ [kirru] ‘to rub with tobacco.’Alveodental consonants have palatal allophones before high front vowels, as could beseen in examples (57) and (58). Geminate consonants and consonant clusters of two consonants occur frequently atsyllable boundaries, and most combinations are permitted. Within a syllable the onlyconsonant cluster found occasionally is that of a stop followed by an alveodental resonant,e.g. [tr], in syllable-initial position. This fact and the contrast between the two vibrantsare both Chibchan and northern Colombian areal features shared by Bar´. ı 2.9 The Muisca languageThe importance of the Muisca or Mosca language (in Muisca: muysc cubun [mw skkuβun] ‘language of the Indians’) in the sixteenth century can be measured from theamount of descriptive material prepared in the colonial period. In 1538 the high plainof Boyac´ and Cundinamarca was densely populated by speakers of Muisca and related adialects. In spite of the fact that the Spanish colonial authorities and clergy were aware ofthe linguistic diversity in the area, they chose Muisca as a so-called ‘general language’(lengua general ) to be used for administration and evangelisation. A chair for Muisca wasestablished in Santaf´ de Bogot´ in 1582. The first chairholder was a parish priest called e aGonzalo Berm´ dez (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1980: 60–75). In the meantime, the practicability u a eof Muisca as a general language remained a matter of contention. Apparently, historyput the opponents in the right, as the language died out during the eighteenth century.According to Uricoechea (1871: xliv), the language was no longer spoken in 1765. The degree of linguistic diversity found in the Muisca realm becomes evident fromobservations of chroniclers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Unfortunately,almost nothing is known about varieties spoken in the Boyac´ and Cundinamarca high- alands, other than Muisca itself. The only specimen of Duit, the language of Boyac´ , is a afragment of a catechism published and analysed by Uricoechea (1871), who reports thatthis was only a sample of a larger document to which he had access. He, furthermore,
  • 107. 82 2 The Chibcha Sphereaffirms that it was written in the language of Duitama, which in his opinion was differentfrom that of Tunja, the capital of Boyac´ . It is unfortunate that the Duit document used aby Uricoechea was never located after his death. Uricoechea’s Duit was a distinct language, clearly related to Muisca, but probablynot on a level of mutual intelligibility. An interesting element of Duit is the frequentoccurrence of r, a sound rarely found in Muisca. Correspondences between Duit r, onthe one hand, and Muisca s [s, s] or z [ts ], on the other, occur; e.g. Duit sir, Muisca sis(y) ˇ[sis( ) ∼ sis( )] ‘this’; Duit pcuare, Muisca pquahaza [pkw ahats a] ‘lightning’. Constenla ˇUma˜ a (1984: 87) furthermore observes a coincidence of dialectal r with standard nMuisca ch [ty ], as can be distilled from place names and local borrowings of the nativelanguage into Spanish. For instance, in the Spanish–Muisca vocabulary contained inthe anonymous manuscript no. 158 of the Colombian National Library (see below) theMuisca version of the name of the town of Zipaquir´ is given as Chicaquicha.21 As we ashall see, the treatment of r is also an element of differentiation between the sources forthe Muisca language itself. Another interesting observation made by Uricoechea (1871: xlii) concerns the ex-istence around 1600 of a mixed dialect of Spanish and Muisca, which he calls jitano(‘gipsy’). He provides a few examples, such as hicabai for ‘horse’ (Spanish caballo)and zebos for ‘lover’ (Spanish mancebo). Unfortunately, no source is mentioned forUricoechea’s jitano data. 2.9.1 SourcesOf the many grammatical studies dealing with the Muisca language mentioned in thehistorical sources only three are known to have survived. One of these studies is thework of a Dominican and scholar of the Muisca language, Bernardo de Lugo (1619);the two others have no known authors. Lugo’s work has been the subject of a modernfacsimile edition with an introduction by Alvar (1978). The two anonymous gram-mars belong to a different tradition from Lugo’s. One of them was sent to Madrid in1789 by Mutis (cf. section 2.2) and was kept as manuscript no. 2922 in the Libraryof the Royal Palace in Madrid, together with a Spanish–Muisca vocabulary (cf. Ostler1999). Most of the contents of the Royal Palace Library grammar were published byLucena Salmoral (1967, 1970); the vocabulary by Quesada Pacheco (1991). A muchearlier publication by Quijano Otero (1883) was apparently based on a copy of thesame manuscript that remained in Colombia until it was lost. In 1970, after its partialpublication by Lucena Salmoral, the manuscript of the Royal Palace Library grammar21 The ending -quir´ , so far unexplained, is highly frequent in Boyac´ and Cundinamarca (e.g. a a Chiquinquir´ , Moniquir´ , Raquir´ ). As Constenla Uma˜ a points out, it has often mistakenly a a a n been identified with the word quica (also recorded as quyca) ‘place’, ‘town’.
  • 108. 2.9 The Muisca language 83became lost as well, while being transferred from Madrid to Salamanca (L´ pez Garc´a o ı 221995: 20). The other anonymous work is kept as manuscript no. 158 in the NationalLibrary of Colombia. Apart from a grammar, it contains an extensive vocabulary andreligious texts. It is available in print in an edition of the Instituto Caro y Cuervo(Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987) and certainly constitutes the most important extant source on a eMuisca. The authorship of the two anonymous grammars has been the object of much spec-ulation. A candidate for the authorship of either one of the manuscripts is the ItalianJesuit Joseph Dadey (1576–1660), known in his time as the foremost authority on theMuisca language. The history of the three Muisca grammars and their interrelations isdiscussed in Gonz´ lez de P´ rez (1980, 1987); see also Ostler (1994). a e Several works on Muisca date from the nineteenth century. Uricoechea’s Muiscagrammar and vocabulary of 1871 is based on a compilation of elements from the twoanonymous manuscripts. Adam (1878) presents an interesting study of Muisca wordformation and syntax, based on Uricoechea, and Middendorf (1892) a grammaticaloverview of the language. Acosta Orteg´ n (1938) is useful because it contains an exten- osive Muisca–Spanish vocabulary. It, however, must be used with utmost care due to theauthor’s highly personal and erratic interpretation of the symbols found in the originalMuisca sources. For the following succinct discussion of the Muisca facts, we will referto and draw from a substantial body of linguistic literature that appeared in the 1980sand 1990s. Constenla Uma˜ a (1984) presents a modern interpretation of the Muisca nsound system. Morphological and syntactic aspects of the Muisca language are treatedin Ostler (1993, 1994) and, in a historical-comparative perspective, in Ostler (2000).Translated and annotated specimens of colonial texts written in the Muisca languageare found in Ostler (1995, 1999). A further study dealing with Muisca is L´ pez Garc´a o ı(1995). 2.9.2 PhonologyThe orthography that was developed for Muisca during the colonial period diverged inseveral respects from general Spanish usage in accordance with the necessities of thelanguage. For the recovery and interpretation of the sounds of Muisca, Lugo’s work is ofparticular importance. It contains three symbols not found in the anonymous grammars:<c−h>, < h> and < >. Lugo’s symbol <c− is represented as <ch> in the other h> 23sources. A passage in the National Library grammar (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 72) a esuggests that the sound it stood for was not a palatal affricate as in Spanish, but rather a22 Thanks to Christiane D¨ mmler, a photocopied version of the manuscript is in existence. u23 Except for the section on numerals in the National Library manuscript (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: a e 161–3). This section seems to have been directly inspired by Lugo’s work.
  • 109. 84 2 The Chibcha Spherepalatalised stop [ty ] (cf. Constenla Uma˜ a 1984: 75–9).24 It should be noticed, however, nthat Lugo uses both the symbols <c h> and <ch> (cf. Ostler 1995: 134). In spite of −some obvious misspellings and inconsistencies in the use of the two symbols at issue,Lugo shows a clear preference for the use of <ch> before <i> (e.g. in chi- ‘our’, chiˆ e‘we’) and of <c− before any other vowel (e.g. in c− h> huen ha ‘bad’, c− q ‘priest’). hOstler notes a number of exceptions in which <c− precedes <i>, such as c− − ‘to h> hichualearn’ and c− − ‘Chibcha’. Still, it may be argued that <ch> could have been a palatal hibchaaffricate (as in Spanish), whereas <c− represented some other sound, for instance, [ty ]. h>Lugo’s symbol < h> is replaced by <z> in the anonymous grammars (where Lugo’sc− huen ha becomes chuenza). It probably represented an alveodental affricate [ts ], asConstenla Uma˜ a (1984: 79–85) argues.25 n Lugo’s symbol < > represented a vowel reportedly intermediate between [e] and [i].On the basis of comparative considerations and the phonetic descriptions of the time,Constenla Uma˜ a (1984: 93–7) assigns it the value of a high central vowel [ ]. In the other nsources < > has been replaced by <y>; thus, Lugo’s c− q becomes chyquy.26 When h< /y> follows a labial consonant in writing, a symbol <u> is always inserted; e.g. inmu sca / muysca ‘human being’. It may have represented a non-syllabic labial elementsubsidiary to the realisation of the high central vowel (/m ska/ [mw ska]). The fact thatLugo chose to use a special symbol for the high central vowel turned out felicitous inthat it avoids confusion with the high front vowel [i] and its non-syllabic correlate [y].Both could be written <i> as well as <y> in colonial Spanish sources, as in fact theywere in Lugo. Muisca had three simple stop consonants in the labial, alveolar and velar articulatorypositions: [p], [t] and [k], respectively. For the [k] three different spellings were in use:<c>, <q> and <qu>. Lugo used <q> before < > and before <h> (e.g. c− q ‘priest’, hqhic− ‘ten’), but, conforming to the Spanish orthography, he used <qu> before <e> haand <i>, and <c> elsewhere. Before other vowels <qu> represented a labialised velarsound [kw ], as in h bq squˆ ‘I do’. In the National Library grammar <qu> [k] also aappears before <y> (Lugo’s < >), and <q> does not occur by itself; for its treatmentof Lugo’s <qh> see below.24 The passage (our translation) reads: ‘The pronunciation of the syllables cha, che, chi, cho, chu should not be done with the tongue as a whole but just with the tip of it.’25 The awkwardness of Lugo’s representation of the complex obstruents [ty ] and [ts ] is reminiscent of the way in which la Carrera sought to describe comparable sounds in Mochica (by means of the symbols <cɥ> and <tzh>, respectively; cf. section 3.4).26 The word chyquy ‘priest’ originally denoted representatives of the native religion, but was subsequently also used for Roman Catholic clergymen. Its Spanish corruption jeque ‘sheikh’ presents an interesting case of linguistic interaction. In colonial New Granada native priests were usually referred to as moh´ n. a
  • 110. 2.9 The Muisca language 85 In addition to the three plain stops, Muisca had a complex obstruent, both in a plainand in a labialised version. It was usually written <pq(u)>, as in pqua [pkw a] ‘tongue’,pqueta [pketa] ‘silly’ and pquyquy [pk k ] ‘understanding’. The plain version occurredbefore [e], [i] and [ ], the labialised version before [a] and [o]. This sound may haverepresented a coarticulated stop ([pk], [pkw ]) and is mentioned in the National Librarygrammar as one of the special sounds (pronunciaciones particulares) of the language(Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 72; cf. also Constenla Uma˜ a 1984: 74). Notwithstanding the a e nfact that many other exotic consonant clusters were found in Muisca, there are goodreasons to assign a special status to this combination. At least in some lexical itemsthe presumed coarticulated stop was a reflex of *ku-, as Muisca has pk(w) V where otherChibchan languages have kw V or kuwV (Constenla Uma˜ a 1989: 43–4). Compare, for in- nstance, Muisca pqua, Chimila kw a:ʔ, Cuna kw apinni [kw a:bin], Uw Cuwa (Tunebo) k` wa ´ u‘tongue’; Muisca pquaca, Uw Cuwa kw´ka ‘arm’; Muisca pquyhyxio, Uw Cuwa kw as´ ya ı a‘white’; Muisca pquyquy ‘understanding’, Cuna kw ake [kw a:ge] ‘heart’; Muisca fapqua‘chicha’, Uw Cuwa b´ kw a (Huber and Reed 1992). The presence of a coarticulated stop ais limited to Muisca and Duit. It has not been found in other Chibchan languages. Six symbols that were used in the transcription of Muisca have been interpreted as rep-resenting fricatives: <b>, <f>, <s>, <x>, <g> and <h>. Constenla Uma˜ a (1984: n74) observes that <b> and <f> were never used contrastively. These symbols may havereferred to voiced [β] and voiceless [ϕ] bilabial fricatives, respectively, presumably al-lophones of a single phoneme. It should be observed that <f> was only used beforea vowel symbol, whereas <b> occurred in any position, before another consonant aswell as word-finally. Lugo practically limited the use of <f> (as an alternative for <b>)to the position before <u> (e.g. fuc− ‘woman’, but cubun ‘language’), whereas the haother sources extended the use of <f> to other prevocalic positions as well (e.g. fac‘outside’, fihista ‘breast’). As it seems, some orthographic normalisation occurred to theextent that <f> became used mainly (but not exclusively) in root-initial position beforea vowel.27 The identification of <b> and <f> as identical elements is challenged bythe existence of a word-initial cluster <bf>, which is found in the word bfue ‘beam’.Possibly, this cluster may have to be reinterpreted to contain an internal vowel [β ϕue]. The symbols <s> and <x> represented sibilants (presumably [s] and [ˇ], respec- stively). Constenla Uma˜ a (1984: 86) considers them not to be contrastive. The symbol n<x> was used optionally before <i> and <y> (e.g. xie ‘who?’, bxy ‘I carry’), whereas<s> could occur in all positions (e.g. saca ‘nose’, soco ‘bring!’, sisy ‘this’, muysca‘human being’). Although in many lexical items (e.g. sie ∼ xie ‘river’, ‘water’; also‘who’) the two symbols can be used interchangeably, in other cases there seems to bea preference for either one. Word pairs such as siu ‘rain’ versus xiun ‘sweat’, and sua27 Today f is widely used in place names of Chibchan origin, such as Facatativ´ and Fusagasug´ . a a
  • 111. 86 2 The Chibcha Sphere‘sun’ versus xua ‘dew’ do suggest an opposition, albeit of a limited functional load. InLugo <x> is mainly, and fairly consistently, found before <i>. The symbol <g> is interpreted by Constenla Uma˜ a (1984: 88–90) as a voiced velar nfricative [γ ], historically derived from a Chibchan voiced velar stop *g; e.g. gye [γ e]‘excrement’ (cf. Chimila ga:, Kogui gai). The assumption that <g> was a fricative isbased on a probable symmetry with the labials (<b/f>) and on the pronunciation of thecorresponding symbol in Spanish. As in Spanish, <gu> rather than <g>, was writtenbefore <e>, <i> and, in Lugo, also before < >; e.g. in gue ∼ gu ‘to be’, guity- ‘towhip’.28 Even though the regular realisation of <g> was allegedly a fricative, a stopallophone may have occurred instead after a nasal, for instance, in the verbal futureending -nga. With the complex symbol <gu> we touch upon an insufficiency of the colonial Muiscaorthography because an identical sequence was used to represent a bilabial glide [w] or alabialised voiced velar fricative [γ w ], e.g. in gue [γ w e ∼ we] ‘house’, gui ‘wife’ [γ w i ∼wi]. In such cases the morphophonemic behaviour of the lexical item in question must beconsidered in order to recover the correct form. For instance, the first-person possessedform of ‘house’ is zue [ts we] ‘my house’, not *zgue [ts γ e], as might be expected if thevelar element were prominent. Lugo, who used diacritics, appears to have indicated thepresence of a labial element by a circumflex accent on the following vowel (guˆ , guˆ ), e ıalthough not consistently. The question whether the velar element was pronounced atall in such cases remains open for discussion. Lugo occasionally used the spelling -guˆ afor the interrogative suffix [wa]. Some Chibchan cognate relations, such as Muisca gua‘fish’ (Cuna ua, Chimila wa:ŋgra:, Kogui uaka), suggest that a velar fricative was notnecessarily always represented in <gu>.29 All colonial sources agree that the symbol <h> represented an aspiration. In con-tradistinction to <gu>, the combination <hu> was not normally used to denote a labialapproximant [w], as in the orthography of so many other Amerindian languages duringthe colonial period, e.g. hui ‘inside’ was pronounced [huy ∼ huwi], not *[wi]. TheMuisca aspiration occurred prevocalically, but characteristically also between two likevowels. Sequences of identical high vowels separated by <h> may have counted assingle vowels. This can be deduced from the fact that the tense–aspect suffix -squa,28 The vocabulary of the National Library grammar mentions a related verb root uity- [wit ], which has the meaning ‘to whip/chastise oneself.’ This unique correlation does not prevent us from following the general opinion that guity- was pronounced [γ it ], not [γ w it ] nor [wit ]. The shape of the prefixes that accompany guity- supports this view.29 Constenla Uma˜ a (1984: 98) mentions the example of the root gua- ‘to kill’ as a case where a n velar fricative could have been retained (by comparison with Guatuso kua:, also Kogui gw asi). ´ˇ However, the root for ‘to kill’ in Muisca is gu-, rather than gua-. The confusion is probably due to Lugo (1619: 77–8), who translates the verb for ‘to feed’ gua-squˆ as ‘to kill’, ‘to say’, glosses a which correspond to gu-squˆ ; but see p. 70, where he translates it correctly. In the Muisca stem a (b)gu- ‘to kill’ a velar fricative was indeed present.
  • 112. 2.9 The Muisca language 87otherwise only occurring after monosyllabic roots ending in a vowel, was also regularlyfound after roots that ended in such a sequence, e.g. b-chuhu-squa ‘to wash’, b-chihi-squa ‘to write’, ‘to paint’, tyhy-squa ‘to sit down’.30 This situation suggests a specialclass of aspirated vowels. In Lugo’s grammar the <VhV> sequence is relatively in-frequent, omission of its first vowel being the rule, as, for instance, in shˆ hˆ ‘eight’, u aqhˆ ma ‘big’, th pqua- ‘to wound’ (in the vocabulary of the National Library grammar: usuhuza, cuhuma, b-tyhypqua-, respectively) and bhacˆ ca ‘needlessly’ ( fahacuca in the uvocabulary published by Quesada Pacheco 1991). In some items Lugo hesitates betweennotations of the types <hV> and <hVhV>, as in the postposition bhˆ hˆ hˆ ∼ bhˆ hˆ o o a o a‘with’ (bohoza), or inserts an <h> where others do not have it, as, for instance, in th h -‘to love’ (b-tyzy-). The nasals <m> and <n> were both very frequent. The symbol <r>, which presum-ably represented a vibrant, is occasionally found in Lugo, but it is nearly absent in theother sources, who replace it with <ch>; e.g. (Lugo) erq [ erk ], (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez a e y 311987: 286) yechyc [ et k] ‘other’. At least in borrowings from Spanish it survived, ascan be deduced from a case like raga ‘dagger’ (Spanish daga). There were no lateralsin Muisca. In addition to the vowel < /y> (see above), the sources of the Muisca languagerecord five vowels that were similar to their Spanish counterparts: a, e, i, o, u. The vowelsymbols <i> and <u> can refer both to syllabic [i], [u], and to non-syllabic [y], [w].32An analysis of the lexical and grammatical data brings to light the necessity to distinguishbetween the two possibilities in writing, as their realisation is not entirely predictable.For instance, the spelling ja of the word for ‘firewood’ (also found as ia, cf. Uw Cuwar´ ya) in the vocabulary accompanying the National Library grammar (Gonz´ lez de e aP´ rez 1987: 273) strongly suggests the presence of a non-syllabic approximant [ya]. eBy contrast, the word for ‘illness’ iu must be interpreted as polysyllabic [iyu] on thebasis of its morphophonemic behaviour.33 This option appears to be confirmed by the1612 Vocabulary, in which the form at issue is transcribed as i¨ , suggesting that the two uvowels were pronounced separately (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 62). In the Royal PalaceLibrary grammar published by Lucena Salmoral (1967: 67) the past participle of the verbm-u- ‘to spin’ is explicitly written as uisca, again suggesting that the vowel sequence ¨30 The ending -squa is also found after the verbaliser -go-, e.g. in muysy-go-squa ‘to dream’ (cf. Adelaar 1995a). In the Muisca vocabularies all non-stative verbs are presented with either the ending -squa or -suca.31 The word erq is found in one of the sonnets that accompany Lugo’s grammar (Ostler 1995: 136).32 In word-initial position, <u> is often replaced with its orthographic variant <v>, especially when a full vowel [u] is represented.33 The verb iu- ‘to be ill’ takes the imperfective suffix -suca, not its alternative form -squa. Since the latter is preferred after monosyllabic roots ending in a vowel, the use of -suca suggests a polysyllabic structure for the root iu (cf. Adelaar 1995a).
  • 113. 88 2 The Chibcha SphereTable 2.6 Inventory of Muisca consonant phonemes Bilabial Alveolar Palatal Velar Coarticulated labiovelar GlottalStops p t k pkw / pkAffricates c ty / c ˇFricatives β/ϕ s (ˇ) s γ hNasals m nVibrant rGlides w y Table 2.7 Inventory of Muisca vowel phonemes Front Central Back High i u Mid e o Low a Aspirated versus plainmay have been polysyllabic [uwi]. Finally, it is likely that gui [γ w i ∼ wi] ‘wife’ and ui[uy ∼ uwi] ‘left side’ were distinct not only in writing, but also in pronunciation. A putative inventory of the Muisca consonant phonemes is shown in table 2.6. It con-tains the phonemes proposed in Constenla Uma˜ a (1984) expanded with our additions. n The vowels of Muisca are shown in table 2.7. Consonant clusters frequently occur both in word-initial and -final position (cf.Constenla Uma˜ a 1984: 100–1). Most (but not all) of the initial clusters owe their nexistence to the presence of a prefix, in particular the verbal prefix b-/m-, which canindicate transitivity, and the personal reference markers z- ‘first person singular’ andm- ‘second person singular’, which indicate both possessor and subject. These personalreference markers are also found as ze-/zy- and um-, respectively, making it clear thatif an additional vowel was not always present, it was at least recoverable.34 In (59) theprefix ze- is given in its full form, whereas m- is short. (59) m-hu-za-c ze-guque 2S.SG-come-NE-AL 1S.SG-say.PA ‘I thought that you had not come.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 257) a e34 Lugo writes h - for the first-person prefix. Remember also that um- is frequently represented as vm-; in our discussion of Muisca grammar, we shall write um- throughout.
  • 114. 2.9 The Muisca language 89 The prefix b-/m- is frequently found before other consonants. Although there seemsto be no vowel that can be recovered, certain combinations with b-, in particular, areawkward to pronounce if no vowel is inserted (see also above for the unusual case ofbfue).35 Some examples of clusters involving b-/m- are given in (60). The function ofthe prefix will be treated later. (60) b-so- ‘to eat (herbs, leaves)’ b-ca- ‘to eat (maize, meat, fruit, etc.)’ b-chichua- ‘to learn’ b-hu- ‘to carry’ m-nypqua- ‘to hear’, ‘to understand’ Word-final consonant clusters are frequently found in genitives which precede theirheads. When the genitive consists of a noun with a final vowel a, that vowel may besuppressed. As a result, a consonant cluster can end up in word-final position, (61). (61) muysc chimy [muysca ‘human being’] human.being.G flesh ‘human flesh’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 210) a e 2.9.3 GrammarIn a review of previous syntactical claims concerning the Muisca language Ostler (1994)concludes that Muisca is a strict SOV language. The auxiliary verb gue/gu follows themain verb. Both adjectives and numerals follow the noun they modify, while demon-stratives and genitives precede the noun they modify. Muisca has postpositions and casesuffixes. All these features are characteristic for most of the Chibchan languages that wehave discussed until now. From a morphological point of view Muisca is a complex language that uses bothprefixes and suffixes. The prefixes are mainly related to personal reference and valency(passive, transitive–intransitive). Nominalisation, verbalisation, negation, interrogation,topicalisation, mood, tense, aspect, case and degree (of adjectives) are indicated bymeans of suffixes. Other morphological processes found in Muisca are root suppletion,internal vowel change and the suppression of final vowels, as in (61). Some parts of theverbal conjugation, in particular the present and past participles, the so-called secondsupine, and the imperative can be highly irregular.35 Spanish colonial grammarians often tolerated consonant sequences which their modern suc- cessors prefer to split by inserting shwa-type vowels; for a similar example in Araucanian see chapter 5.
  • 115. 90 2 The Chibcha Sphere The Muisca verbal lexicon comprises a formal division between transitive and in-transitive verbs. This division is made visible by the conjugational behaviour of theverbs, and in most cases also by the shape of the verb stem itself. Many transitive verbstems in Muisca contain the prefix b-/m-; see also (60). If the transitive verb stem ispart of a transitive/intransitive verb pair, its intransitive counterpart does not have theb-/m- prefix. Speaking generally, the m- allomorph is found before vowels and nasals,whereas b- occurs in clusters with non-nasal consonants. It has been argued that, sincem- is the prevocalic allomorph (where no influence from the phonological environmentis expected), it also constitutes the more basic form of the prefix (Ostler 2000: 288).Transitive–intransitive verb pairs differentiated by b-/m- are exemplified in (62) and(63). The latter also exhibits a root vowel change. (62) to- ‘to split’ [intransitive] b-to- ‘to split’ [transitive] (63) na- ‘to go’ [intransitive] m-ny- ‘to take along’ [transitive] Transitive verb stems that are not paired with intransitives may contain the b-/m-prefix, although many of them do not. All transitive verbs lose their b-/m- prefix in theimperative, and in several participial and gerund forms (64). Some intransitive verbsalso have an initial b-/m- element, which behaves as if it were part of the root and isnever lost. Intransitive verbs of any type take an additional prefix a- in the imperativeform (65) and occasionally also in one of the participles. (64) b-quy- ‘to do’ [transitive] quy-u ‘do!’ [transitive imperative] quy-ia ‘having done’ [transitive past participle] (65) bgy- ‘to die’ [intransitive] a-bgy-u ‘die!’ [intransitive imperative] Examples (66) and (67) illustrate the case of a transitive–intransitive pair with an ir-regular imperative form, where it can be seen that the prefix a- serves to avoid homonymybetween a transitive and an intransitive form. The most common imperative ending is-u (plural -u-ua). For negative commands the negative future is used. (66) b-ga- ‘to make’, ‘to cause to become’ [transitive] so ‘make!’, ‘cause to become!’ [transitive imperative] (67) ga- ‘to become’ [intransitive] a-so ‘become!’ [intransitive imperative]
  • 116. 2.9 The Muisca language 91 There are other formal strategies to distinguish transitive from intransitive verbs. Thelatter may take a suffix -n-, not found in the former, e.g. miu- ‘to crumble (transitive)’versus miu-n- ‘to crumble (intransitive)’. A number of Muisca verbs are stative. They refer to existence or position and mayencode number or shape of the theme. Most of these verbs end in -ne, e.g. zo-ne ‘to be lo-cated (singular)’, puy-ne ‘to be located (of liquids)’ (Ostler and Gonz´ lez forthcoming). aThe majority of Muisca verbs, however, are active. Active verbs are conjugated for tense.They can take either one of the characteristic endings -squa and -suca, which is the formby which they are normally found in the colonial dictionaries. The endings -squa and-suca indicate imperfective aspect in finite verbs, which can then be interpreted as presentor (ongoing) past-tense forms. (68) ze-bquy-squa 1S.SG-do-IA ‘I do’, ‘I was doing.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 81) a e (69) ze-guity-suca 1S.SG-whip-IA ‘I whip’, ‘I was whipping.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 84) a e As we have noted before, the choice of -squa is phonologically determined (seealso Adam 1878). For -suca there is no such restriction. Since it is added to all activeverb roots that cannot take -squa, it appears to have a default distribution. In a few cases-suca has been found with a root that normally takes -squa, allegedly with a frequentativemeaning (70), (71). (70) ze-hu-squa36 1S.SG-come-IA ‘I come.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 332) a e (71) ze-hu-suca 1S.SG-come-IA ‘I come often.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 332) a e It may be observed that examples (70) and (71), originally from the National Librarygrammar, seem to be incompatible with a statement made in the same source, namely,36 (70) and (71) are entries in Gonz´ lez de P´ rez’s edition of the vocabulary of the National Library a e grammar, where they appear as zchusqua and zchusuca, respectively. Elsewhere in the same work (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 98, 121) we find zehusqua with the meaning ‘to come’. We assume a e that zchusqua and zchusuca, not attested in any other source as far as we know, are miswritings for zehusqua and zehusuca, respectively. Uricoechea (1871: 204), who must have used the same source, writes zuhusqua/zuhusuca in accordance with a pronunciation rule formulated in the National Library grammar (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 140). a e
  • 117. 92 2 The Chibcha Spherethat ze-hu-squa serves as the frequentative counterpart of the defective verb i-xyquy ‘Icome’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 121). a e A frequentative meaning also obtains when -suca is added to a stative stem (72), (73). (72) i-sucu-n37 1S.SG-be.there-ST ‘I am there.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 261) a e (73) i-sucu-n-suca 1S.SG-be.there-ST-IA ‘I am there frequently.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 261) a e Some verbs, such as -na ‘to go’, can have a present-tense interpretation, even whenthe imperfective suffix is lacking. If there is an imperfective suffix, it has a frequentativemeaning, even though it is -squa. (74) i-na 1S.SG-go ‘I go’, ‘I went.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 123) a e (75) i-na-squa 1S.SG-go-IA ‘I go often.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 123) a e The indicative future tense of verbs is formed by adding -nga to those verbs that cantake -squa in the present tense, and -nynga to those that can only take -suca; for a historicalphonological explanation of this phenomenon see Ostler and Gonz´ lez (forthcoming). aStative verbs change -ne to -ne-nga (76). The future form of the verb ‘to be’ is nga. (76) muysca-c ze-gue-ne-nga man-AL 1S.SG-be-ST-F ‘I will be a man (person).’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 127) a e The past tense has no specific ending. Verb roots which end in -a- normally takean (optional) suffix -o [w] (77); some roots (including a few in -a-) take -quy (∼-que)(78); the others remain unaltered.38 Before the negative suffix -za most roots remainunaltered (79).37 There was probably no difference in use between the endings -n and -ne (∼-ny) (Ostler and Gonz´ lez forthcoming). a38 The velar stop in -quy (∼-que) may also appear in other forms of the paradigm, namely in the imperative and past participle. From a historical point of view, it can be considered as a part of the root (Ostler and Gonz´ lez, forthcoming). a
  • 118. 2.9 The Muisca language 93 (77) ze-mnypqua(-o) 1S.SG-hear/understand-PA ‘I have heard/understood.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 98) a e (78) um-gui boza um-caquy-oa 2P.SG-wife with 2S.SG-fight.PA-IR ‘Did you fight with your wife?’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 356) a e (79) ze-gu-za [ze-guquy ‘I said’] 1S.SG-say.PA-NE ‘I did not say.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 115) a e Interrogation and negation are indicated by adding the suffixes -ua [wa]/-o39 and -za,respectively, to a verb form. The future tense has a special negative ending -zi-nga (not*-nga-za). The auxiliary verb gue/gu has as its interrogative and negative counterpartsua/o and nza, respectively; the corresponding future forms are nnua and nzinga. A longerand more explicit negation of the verb ‘to be’ is ma-gue-za. It includes a negative prefixma- of limited productivity. (80) hycha-n i-na-zi-nga I-TO 1S.SG-go-NE-F ‘I will not go.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 335) a e (81) chie nnua we be.F.IR ‘Shall we be?’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 78) a e (82) chie nzinga we be.NE.F ‘We shall not be.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 79) a e Muisca has three nominalisations or relative verbs which have been interpreted tradi-tionally as participles (agentives) of the present, future and past. With all three, the b-/m-prefix is lost. The present participle can be formed by adding a suffix -sca, very oftenaccompanied by a vowel change in the root (83). This suffix -sca can only be added toroots that have the phonological characteristics allowing the presence of the imperfec-tive marker -squa (see above). The other roots, namely, those that take the imperfectivemarker -suca, are treated differently. They receive either a suffix -suca (transitives) (84),or -uca (intransitives) (85).39 The distribution of -ua in relation to -o is not entirely clear; it may have been a case of free variation (Ostler and Gonz´ lez forthcoming). The marker -o is reminiscent of the interrogative a marker -o in Ika.
  • 119. 94 2 The Chibcha Sphere (83) b-quy ‘to do’ qui-sca ‘(he) who does’ m-o- ‘to bathe [transitive]’ o-esca ‘(he) who bathes (someone)’ o- ‘to bathe [intransitive]’ o-esca ‘(he) who bathes (himself)’ b-ca- ‘to eat’ qui-esca ‘(he) who eats’ (84) b-xin- ‘to sew’ xin-suca ‘(he) who sews’ (85) cubun- ‘to speak’ cubun-uca ‘(he) who speaks’ Some present participles are quite irregular in their formation, allowing, in a few cases,an additional distinction between a frequentative and a non-frequentative meaning. Someirregular forms coincide either with the future, or with the past participle (86), (87). In(86) the regular formal opposition is taken over by a frequentative contrast. A futureform (sienga) is used both for present and future, whereas the expected present form(siesca) is interpreted as a present frequentative. (86) na- ‘to go’ sie-nga ‘(he) who goes’, ‘(he) who will go’ sie-sca ‘(he) who goes often’ (87) sucun- ‘to be’ suz-a ‘(he) who is’, ‘(he) who has been’ The future participle, with a few exceptions, takes the same endings as the futureindicative (-nga, -nynga). The past participle generally ends in -a or -ia. There aremany irregular formations, and the final consonant of a stem preceding -a is often notpredictable.40 The past participle has an additional function. It can be used as a hortative(a so-called ‘second imperative’) with the possibility of marking the subject for allpersons and number (88). A third-person subject remains unmarked, but it is possible todistinguish between transitive and intransitive forms by adding the prefix a- to the latter(89). Present participles can also be used as hortatives; they convey progressive ratherthan punctual aspect meaning. (88) chi-quy-ia 1S.PL-do-PA.AG ‘(we) who did’, ‘(we) having done’, ‘Let us do!’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 82) a e (89) za-ia [b-za-‘to place’] place-PA.AG ‘(he) who placed it’, ‘Let him place it!’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 104) a e40 Considering the fact that the consonants preserved in past-participle endings are also found in so-called irregular past-tense forms and imperatives, one may conclude that they are part of original stems, which appear in a truncated form in the present tense; cf. Ostler and Gonz´ lez a (forthcoming).
  • 120. 2.9 The Muisca language 95 (90) a-za-ia [za- ‘to take a place’] NT-place-PA.AG ‘(he) who took a place’, ‘Let him take a place!’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 104) a e When a sentence is introduced by an interrogative pronoun, its main verb must be aparticiple, rather than a finite verb (91). (Note that baz-a is a past participle of the verbm-a- ‘to bring’.) This does not hold when the interrogative pronoun is in an oblique caseor is followed by a postposition (92); cf. Ostler (1994: 221–2). (91) ipqua fuyz-o ma-baz-a [fuyze ‘all’] what all-IR 2S.SG-bring-PA.AG ‘What things did you bring?’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 132) a e ∅ (92) sie-c-o m-∅-cuquy [b-cu- ‘to buy’] who-AL-IR 2S.SG-T-buy.PA ‘From whom did you buy it?’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 193) a e Passive resultative participles can be formed from at least part of the transitive verbs.The shape of these participles resembles that of stative verbs, and is characterised by aprefix a- and a suffix -ne, attached to the past-tense stem (93); cf. Ostler and Gonz´ leza(forthcoming). (93) ia a-chihiquy-ne already 3S-write-SN ‘It is already written.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 126) a e The grammars of the Muisca language mention the existence of two so-called‘supines’. Examples of use are rare. The first supine has subject marking (personalreference) and a b-/m- prefix if applicable. It is derived from the root by adding a suffix-ioa [yowa ∼ yuwa];41 e.g. ze-b-quy-ioa ‘in order for me to do’. The second supine isformally related to the present participle, with which it shares most of the irregularities.It can be obtained by substituting -ca for -suca or -sca, e.g. guity-ca ‘(in order) to beat’,cf. guity-suca ‘(he) who beats’; qui-ca ‘(in order) to do’, cf. qui-sca ‘(he) who does’(Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 110). a e The passive in Muisca is formed by means of a prefix n-, added to a transitive rootdeprived of its (possible) b-/m- prefix. All indicative tense forms, all originally activeparticiples, as well as the first supine can be passivised. The subject (patient) of a passiveform is identified by means of a personal reference prefix which precedes n-; the agent41 The pronunciation [yuwa] is suggested by the fact that Lugo writes a diacritic on the u, as in a-guit -yˆ a ‘for him/them to beat’ (Lugo 1619: 48–9). The National Library grammar has -ioa. u
  • 121. 96 2 The Chibcha Spherecannot be expressed. A special prefix a-, identical in form to a third-person subjectmarker, accompanies the passive marker, except when the preceding subject markeralready ends in a. This a- prefix of the passive construction is absent before participleswhose subject–patient is third person (also in their hortative function). If we assume thata- is part of the passive formation, the third-person subject marker of the passives maybe interpreted as a zero marker throughout.42 (94) chi-a-n-quy-squa 1S.PL-PS-PS-do-IA ‘We are being done’. ‘It is being done to us.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 111) a e (95) m-a-n-quy-ioa 2S.SG-PS-PS-do-SP ‘for you to be suffered’, ‘so that it may be done to you’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 112) a e (96) ∅-a-n-quy-nga 3S-PS-PS-do-F ‘He/it will be done.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 112) a e (97) ∅-n-quy-ia 3S-PS-do-PA.AG ‘(he) who was done’. ‘Let him/it be done!’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 113) a e Some passive formations are irregular, as is the case of ucan- ‘to know’, where n-is infixed, rather than prefixed, e.g. chi-a-u-n-cane ‘we were known’. Compare alsocha-nn-isty ‘I was seen’ from m-isty- ‘to see’ (cf. Ostler 2000: 284), where a vocaliconset of the root is compensated by doubling of the passive prefix. Personal reference marking in Muisca is morphological and consists of prefixation.Two sets of personal prefixes have to be distinguished minimally. They are summarisedin table 2.8 together with the syntactically free personal pronouns. The roots contained in the case for third-person personal pronouns are demonstratives,rather than personal pronouns. They represent the three usual degrees of distance (nearspeaker / near addressee / remote). The form of the first-person-singular prefix exhibits an interesting variation. It appearsas i- before alveolar and palatal consonants (e.g. i-chuta ‘my son’, i-nyquy ‘my brother’)42 Historically, the a- prefix is probably identical to the homophonous third-person prefix. Ostler (2000: 285) shows that a was a third-person singular pronoun in Proto-Colombian Chibchan. If we analyse a- synchronically as part of the passive formation, no more than two sets of personal reference markers have to be distinguished.
  • 122. 2.9 The Muisca language 97 Table 2.8 Personal reference in Muisca Set 1 Set 2 Personal pronouns 1 pers. sing. z- / i- / Ø- cha- hycha 1 pers. plur. chi- chi- chie 2 pers. sing. m- ma- mue ∼ muy* 2 pers. plur. mi- mi- mie 3 pers. a- Ø- sis(y) / ys(y) / as(y) * Word-final high vowels in monosyllabic words are normally followed by -e; the form muy [mw ] is found before words with an initial vowel, as in muy um-boi ‘your cloak’.and as z(e∼y)- elsewhere (cf. Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 75).43 The latter is found as a ez- before vowels (e.g. z-ue ‘my house’) and as ze- (Lugo: h -) before consonants (e.g.ze-boi ‘my cloak’), although z- is often written instead of ze-. The National Librarygrammar indicates that the prefix ze- was usually left out before a b-/m- prefix, e.g.b-quy-squa ‘I do’ instead of ze-b-quy-squa (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 87). However, this a elast practice is rarely reflected in the examples. When the prefix z- precedes ia [ya] or io,the semi-vowel i is lost, e.g. in z-an-suca ‘I flee’, from ian- ‘to flee’. The presenceof the second-person-singular prefix m- eliminates a following b-/m- prefix, as inm-iohoty-suca ‘you drink’, from b-iohoty- ‘to drink’; this prefix can be preceded by u inorder to facilitate its pronunciation in clusters. The third-person prefix a- is merged witha following high vowel, following the rules a + i > e, a + y > a; a + u > o, e.g. epqua(< a + ipqua) ‘his belongings’; ata (< a + yta ‘his hand’); oba (< a + uba) ‘his face’(Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 140). a e The division of labour that obtains between Set 1 and Set 2 prefixes is of particularinterest. The indicative tenses and first supine (in -ioa) of the active verbs select Set1 prefixes to indicate a subject, and Set 2 prefixes to indicate a first- or second-personobject (98). The simultaneous indication of subject and object is limited to the combina-tions chi-a- (third-person subject and first-person-plural object) and mi-a- (third-personsubject and second-person plural object) (99).44 If any other combination of participantsinvolving a first- or second-person object is to be expressed, the object is indicated mor-phologically by means of a prefix, whereas the subject can be expressed by a noun or afull pronoun. A third-person object is morphologically zero.43 There is a striking parallel with the Chol´ n language (see section 4.11), where the same alter- o nation is found in the third-person-plural prefix i-/ˇ i-. c44 It may be possible to analyse these combinations as contractions of chi(e) a- and mi(e) a-, respectively. One would expect a final -e to be omitted before a vowel.
  • 123. 98 2 The Chibcha Sphere (98) Pedro cha-guity Pedro 1O.SG-beat.PA ‘Pedro beat me.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 143) a e (99) Pedro-z mi-a-guit-ua [guity- ‘to beat’] Pedro-EU45 2O.PL-3S-beat.PA-IR ‘Did Pedro beat you (plural)?’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 143) a e Stative verbs in -ne behave like the active verbs in that their subject is expressed bymeans of Set 1 prefixes. By contrast, the irregular verb ha- ‘to say’ (as in cha-ha-sugue‘I say’, ma-ha-sugue ‘you say’, etc.) takes Set 2 prefixes for subject reference. Theparticiples or relative verbs (including when used as ‘second imperatives’) also takeSet 2 prefixes that refer to a subject; see (88) and (91). Objects can only be indicated bymeans of a free pronoun or noun (100). (100) Dios gue chie ma-quy-ia46 God be we LP-make-PA.AG ‘God is the One who made us.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 143) a e Passive verbs take Set 2 prefixes for the specification of their subject–patient; see(94)–(96). True imperatives do not take prefixes; an object can only be indicated bymeans of a free pronoun (101). (101) hycha gu [b-gu- ‘to kill’] I kill.IM ‘Kill me!’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 143) a e Nouns can take both sets of prefixes. As we have seen in some of the cases mentionedpreviously (a-uba, i-chuta), Set 1 prefixes are used to indicate a possessor. By contrast,Set 2 prefixes refer to the subject of a predicative construction. They are attached to thenoun or adjective which is used predicatively.47 (102) cha-muysca cho gue 1S.SG-man good be ‘I am a good man.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 142) a e45 The element -z (Lugo - h ) is described as an ‘adornment’ in the Royal Palace Library grammar (Lucena Salmoral 1967: 56). It is, in fact, unexplained (cf. Ostler 1994: 213). In some contexts it appears to express the meaning of ‘also’, ‘too’, e.g. fa-z a-hu-za ‘he has not come today (fa) either’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 322). a e46 A prefix ma- (homophonous with second-person-singular ma-) can be added to participles of the verb ‘to do’ with no other semantic effect than ‘elegance’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 144). a e47 In the original the prefix cha- is written separately.
  • 124. 2.9 The Muisca language 99 The case-marking strategies of Muisca are extensively treated in Ostler (1993). Whenexpressed by free lexical items, the subject and the object of a verb are not marked fortheir respective roles. These are made explicit by word order. Ostler (1993: 8) illustratesthis with the following example. (103) Pedro Juan a-b-gu ˆ Pedro Juan 3S-T-kill.PA ‘Pedro killed Juan.’ (Lugo 1619: 94–5) Oblique case is marked by suffixes or postpositions. Three case suffixes -c(a), -n(a),and -s(a) are of central importance. Ostler (1993: 9) characterises their basic localmeanings as Goal, Location and Path, respectively. With the case suffix -c(a) the emphasisis on movement. With -n(a) rest in location is meant, but it can also refer to a source, inparticular when the name of a place is mentioned (106). (104) gua-c a-sy-ne [sy-ne ‘to roam’] mountain-AL 3S-roam-ST ‘He is out roaming through the mountains.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 301) a e (105) ta-s ze-mi-squa [mi- ‘to pass’] field-PT 1S.SG-pass-IA ‘I walk through the field.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 290) a e (106) chunsa-n fac48 a-iane [ian- ‘to flee’] Tunja-L outward 3S-leave.PA ‘He left Tunja.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 227) a e Characteristic of the Muisca language is the existence of fused forms of personalpronouns and case markers. The personal reference markers in these combinations co-incide with the Set 2 prefixes; they are followed by an element -ha- and a case marker.The third-person forms do not contain -ha- and are based on the deictic element y-. Afurther set of fused forms is based on Set 1 prefixes followed by an element -hu- and acase marker. Ostler (1993: 11) identifies this -hu- element with the adverb hui ‘inside’.Again the third-person forms are special.49 An overview of the fused forms is given in table 2.9. The forms in the three upper rows represent straightforward combinations of personand case, the forms in the three lower rows indicate physical nearness (‘with’, ‘at’,‘among’). The following examples are discussed in Ostler (1993: 10). In (109) hui-nahas no prefix, because it is preceded by a full noun as a possessor (suetiba).48 In the original text: uac.49 The existence of these fused combinations of person markers and case markers is reminiscent of a similar phenomenon in the Tupi–Guaran´ languages. Like Muisca, these languages have a ı fair amount of idiosyncratic case marking governed by verbs.
  • 125. 100 2 The Chibcha SphereTable 2.9 Inventory of Muisca pronoun and case combinations (based on Ostler 1993) 1 pers. sing. 1 pers. plur. 2 pers. sing. 2 pers. plur. 3 pers.Goal chahac chihac mahac mihac ycLocation chahan chihan mahan mihan ynPath chahas chihas mahas mihas ysGoal zuhuc chihuc muhuc mihuc hocLocation zuhuin(a) chihuin(a) muhuin(a) mihuin(a) ahuin(a), bonPath zuhus – muhus – hos (107) bo-n i-zo-ne 3P.presence-L 1S.SG-be.there-ST ‘I am at his disposal.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 50) (108) zu-hui-n a-na 1P-presence-L 3S-go.PA ‘He went away from me.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 80) (109) suetiba hui-na fac chi-a-b-ta devil presence-L outside 1O.PL-3S-T-take.PA ‘He took us out of the power of the devil.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 350) a e Ostler (1993: 9) notes that the third-person allative pronoun y-c can be used as a sortof proclitic complement of the verb, even when it is preceded by the real complementnoun phrase. (110) gata y-c cu [b-cu-‘to blow’] fire that-AL blow.IM ‘Blow on the fire!’ (lit. ‘The fire, blow on it!’) (Uricoechea 1871: 70) The grammars and vocabularies of the Muisca language contain a wealth of infor-mation concerning the derived uses of the three basic case markers, which are highlyvaried and idiosyncratic. Ostler (1993: 13–15) analyses their behaviour in connectionwith seventeen representative verbs. Some of the examples he mentions are: (111) pquapqua i-zy-s ∅-b-za-squa [zye ‘hair’] hat 1P.SG-hair-PT 1S.SG-T-locate-IA ‘I put a hat on my head.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 85) (112) muysca cho-c ze-ga-squa man good-AL 1S.SG-become-IA ‘I become a good man.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 269) a e
  • 126. 2.9 The Muisca language 101 Uricoechea (1871: 68–73) offers an extensive list of Muisca verbs and the case com-plements they govern. The choice of complements and verbs can be highly idiomatic,as is illustrated in (113)–(115). (113) cha-ha.c a-quib-go [y-c quib-go- ‘to take leave of’] 1P-AL 3S-leave-FA.PA ‘He took leave of me.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 58) (114) cha-ha.s a-fihiza-n-suca [y-s fihiza-n- ‘to be heavy’] 1P-PT 3S-heavy-NT-IA ‘(The load) is heavy on me.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 295) a e (115) Dios yˆ h-u-c a-b-gˆ e a [ho-c b-ga- ‘to teach’; ie ‘road’] God way 1P-presence-AL ‘She taught me the way of God.’ (Lugo 1619: 116) Muisca has a rich array of postpositions, mostly derived from body-part terms. Thesepostpositions can be combined with the case markers in order to further specify therelation they convey. They can also take possessive personal prefixes. Examples ofsuch postpositions are fihista ‘chest’ (‘on’), uba ‘face’ (‘before’, ‘in front of’) and inta‘substitute’ (‘in place of’). The comitative–instrumental postposition bohoza and thosepostpositions referring to a beneficiary (-san, uaca) are not normally combined withother case markers. The genitive relationship is expressed in different ways with the sole common charac-teristic that a possessor must precede the head. If the possessor is a full personal pronounreferring to one of the participants in the speech act, the corresponding possessive prefixis added to the head noun, e.g. muy um-boi [you 2P.SG-cloak] ‘your cloak’. When thepossessor is not a participant in the speech act (that is, when it is neither first, nor secondperson), no possessive prefix intervenes, but the noun referring to the possessor mayundergo formal changes. One of these changes is the elimination of a final vowel a, aswe have seen in muysc chimy ‘human flesh’ and in muysc cubun ‘language of man’.Alternatively, it is possible to replace the suppressed a by a high vowel u or y. (116) ze-pab-u chuta [paba ‘father’] 1P-father-G son ‘my father’s son’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 73) a e (117) i-chut-y gui [chuta ‘son’] 1P-son-G wife ‘my son’s wife’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 73) a e The loss of final e following a high vowel has also been recorded. It may have todo with the fact that the e itself was originally added by phonological rule, rather than
  • 127. 102 2 The Chibcha Spherebeing part of the inherited form. Example (120) illustrates the use of a postposition in agenitive construction. (118) su cubun [sue ‘Spaniard’, ‘bird’] Spaniard.G language ‘Spanish’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 73, 138) a e (119) i ie [ie ‘smoke’] smoke.G road ‘chimney’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 137) a e (120) xi uaca-ua [xie ‘who’] who.G for-IR ‘for whom?’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 288) a e Finally, a suffix -s can be added as a genitive marker. This option has been attestedwith the words cha ‘man’, ‘male’ and guecha [wety a] ‘uncle on mother’s side’. (121) cha-s gue man-G house ‘the man’s house’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 73, 137) a e Relative clauses in Muisca are mainly constructed by means of participles. Ostler(1993: 24–5) observes that Muisca occasionally encodes oblique case relations in arelative clause. The pronoun–case combination y-n ‘in it’ was used to mark a relativisedelement as locative (122), whereas a rarely attested verbal prefix u- ‘with it’ could dothe same for an instrumental relativised element. As far as the latter is concerned, Ostlerdraws attention to a formally and semantically similar construction in the Rama languageof Nicaragua (Craig 1991). (122) guˆ -n c− e ha-su h-a h-ˆpqua gu ı house it-L 1S.SG-be-PA.AG 1P-belonging be ‘The house in which I live is mine.’ (Lugo 1619: 106–7) The possibilities of verbal complementation in Muisca are numerous. They consist inthe addition of suffixes or postpositions, some of them similar to the ones operating inthe case system, to specific forms of the verbal paradigm. The element -xin, exemplifiedin (123), is added to a participle in order to express a simultaneous event which is real;the element -san is used in the same way to express a hypothetical event (124); -nan,affixed to a finite verb, denotes a condition (125). For a full inventory of the possibilitiessee Ostler (1993: 27–8).
  • 128. 2.9 The Muisca language 103 (123) cha-qui-sca-xin 1S.SG-do-PR.AG-SM ‘when I am doing . . .’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 91) a e (124) cha-quy-nga-san 1S.SG-do-F.AG-HY ‘if I would have to do . . .’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 91) a e (125) ze-b-quy-nga-nan 1S.SG-T-do-F-CD ‘if I have to do . . .’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 90) a e A complement of the verb gu- ‘to say’, ‘to think’, ‘to believe’ is formed by addingthe allative case marker -c(a) to a finite verb, if it is negative, and to a participle, if it ispositive. The former possibility was illustrated in (59) (m-hu-za-c ze-guque ‘I thoughtyou had not come’); an example of the latter is (126). (126) Pedro huca-c ze-guque Pedro come.PA.AG-AL 1S.SG-say.PA ‘I thought Pedro had come.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 257) a e 2.9.4 LexiconAn interesting feature of the more basic verbs of the Muisca lexicon is the fact thatsome of them appear to be semantically underspecified. Uricoechea (1871: 73) observesthat the transitive verb zebtascua (b-ta-) ‘does not mean anything by itself’. Only incombination with a locative adverb or complement does it acquire a meaning, e.g. huib-ta- translated as Spanish meter ‘to put inside’ or encarcelar ‘to lock up in gaol’.Uricoechea gives many examples of such combinations, which suggest that the verbmeans something like ‘to act upon an object with force so as to affect its location in space’(‘to throw’). However, it is certainly difficult to fit in all the idiomatic uses Uricoecheamentions, such as Doctrina y-s b-ta ‘I failed to attend religious training’. Clearly, somesort of force or violence is implied, because ‘to place’, ‘to put’ is preferably translatedby b-za-, a verb with an equally wide spectrum of idiomatic possibilities. The verbb-ga-, another case of low semantic specification, can best be translated as ‘to providesomeone or something with a state or characteristic’ (compare French rendre). Butagain, it is not easy to relate this broad interpretation to the meaning of the expressionho-c b-ga- ‘to teach’, illustrated in (115). The existence of such idioms, which seemreminiscent of slang expressions in present-day European languages, is typical for theMuisca language. There is a remarkable contrast with Andean languages further south,such as Aymara, Mapuche and Quechua, where this sort of idiomatic expressions arepractically non-existent.
  • 129. 104 2 The Chibcha Sphere At the same time, intransitive verbs of motion and position, and transitive verbs oflocation may differ lexically according to the number of actors involved or the shape ofthe theme. For instance, the intransitive verb gu- indicates ‘to be in motion (of severalpeople)’, as in: (127) fac chi-gu-squa outside ‘We go outside.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 316) a e (128) hui chi-gu-squa inside ‘We go inside.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 258) a e The same verb can be used in connection with mass actors, such as water: (129) fac a-gu-squa outside ‘It flows out (of water).’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 317) a e If there is only one actor the verb mi- is preferred, as in: (130) hui ze-mi-squa inside ‘I go inside’, ‘I enter.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 258) a e (131) sua-z guan a-mi-squa sun-EU hanging ‘The sun goes up.’ (lit. ‘The sun goes hanging.’) (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 317) a e As we saw before, the transitive verb for ‘to put’, ‘to bring in a position’ is b-za-.However, when the object is plural pquy- is preferred. (132) guan ∅-b-za-squa hanging 1S.SG-T-put (singular object)-IA ‘I hang (one).’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 214) a e ∅ (133) guan z-∅-pquy-squa hanging 1S.SG-T-put (plural object)-IA ‘I hang (several).’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 214) a e The examples (127)–(133) also nicely illustrate the use of spatial adverbs in Muisca.The usual expressions for ‘to sit’ and ‘to lie’ only differ by means of the case suffix of
  • 130. 2.9 The Muisca language 105their shared complement, hicha ‘earth’. The number of people sitting or lying is relevantfor the choice of the verb. (134) hicha-n i-zo-ne earth-L 1S.SG-be (one person)-ST ‘I sit.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 196) a e (135) hicha-n chi-bizi-ne earth-L 1S.PL-be (several persons)-ST ‘We sit.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 196) a e (136) hicha-s i-zo-ne earth-PT 1S.SG-be (one person)-ST ‘I lie (down).’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 171) a e Transitive verbs of eating differ according to what is eaten. The following possibilitiesare mentioned in the vocabularies (e.g. Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 215–16): b-so- ‘to eat a e(any sort of food, in particular leaves and herbs)’; b-gy- ‘to eat (bread, potatoes, roots);b-ca- ‘to eat (maize, meat, cheese, fruit, biscuits, candies)’; b-gamy- ‘to eat (honey, lard,salt, sauce)’; b-iohoty- ‘to drink’, ‘to eat (gruel)’, b-gyia- ‘to chew’, ‘to eat (sugar-cane)’. The Muisca sources contain ample evidence of loan words from Spanish, such as fin‘wine’ (Spanish vino) and raga ‘dagger’ (Spanish daga). Verbs are incorporated in theirinfinitive form in -r, followed by the verb b-quy- ‘to do’. (137) castigar ma-n-quy-nga [Spanish castigar ‘to punish’] punish 2S.SG-PS-do-F ‘You will be punished.’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 217) a e The demonstratives in Muisca appear to be based on a straightforward system en-coding three degrees of distance sis(y) ‘this’, ys(y) ‘that’, as(y) ‘that (over there)’. Thecorresponding local adverbs (implying rest) are sinaca ‘here’, ynaca ‘there’ and anaca‘over there’. For deictic manner adverbs we find sihic and (h)ysquy ‘thus’, which mayreflect a similar distinction. In addition, there are directional adverbs, si(e) ∼ xi(e) ‘inthis direction’, ysi ‘in that direction’ and asi ‘in that direction (over there)’. However, anadverb that appears to be semantically opposite to si(e) is ai, which means ‘away fromthe speaker’ or ‘forward’, e.g. in ai b-ta- ‘to throw (something) away’ against si b-ta-‘to throw (something) over here’. Interrogative pronouns are heterogeneous in form: xie ∼ sie ‘who’, ipqua ‘what’,epqua-n ‘where (rest)’, epqua-c ‘where (goal)’, fi- ‘how many’, fica ‘how many (of timeunits)’, ‘how long ago’, fes ∼ bes ‘which’, ‘when’, hac ‘how’. All must be followed byan interrogative marker -o/-ua when used interrogatively.
  • 131. 106 2 The Chibcha Sphere The Muisca numerals reflect a vigesimal system. The ten first units are ata ‘one’,boza ‘two’, mica ‘three’, muyhyca ‘four’, hyzca ‘five’, ta(a)50 ‘six’, cuhupqua ‘seven’,suhuza ‘eight’, aca ‘nine’, ubchihica ‘ten’. The list presented here has been compiledon the basis of Gonz´ lez de P´ rez (1987) and Quesada Pacheco (1991) in an endeavour a eto overcome the gaps and orthographic inconsistencies found in all these sources withrespect to numerals. The numbers from ten to nineteen are formed on the basis of theroot quihicha ‘foot’ followed by the respective unit, e.g. quihicha ata ‘eleven’. The wordfor twenty is gue-ta, based on a root gue [we]; forty is gue-boza, sixty is gue-mica, etc.Lugo mentions two series of ordinal numbers. Units of time can combine with numeralsin order to refer to past units; e.g. zocam ‘year’, zocam-bo-na ‘two years ago’, zoca-mi-na ‘three years ago’. For days the suffix -na suffices: mi-na ‘day before yesterday’,muyhyca-na ‘the day before the day before yesterday’, etc. According to the vocabularyof the National Library grammar it is possible to count back using separate expressionsuntil twenty days before the moment of speaking. Kinship terms in Muisca involve distinctions of gender of the referent (e.g. brotherversus sister), gender of the person from whose viewpoint the relationship is consid-ered (e.g. sibling of man versus sibling of woman), and relative age (e.g. elder versusyounger sibling). There is no distinction between son and daughter, both being calledchuta. Father’s brother and mother’s sister are called father (paba) and mother (guaia),respectively, but there are separate terms for mother’s brother (gue-cha, lit. ‘house-man’)and father’s sister (paba-fucha, lit. ‘father-woman’). 2.9.5 A Muisca textVirtually all Muisca texts known to us belong to the Roman Catholic religious domain.They can be found as appendices to all three grammars that have been preserved. Anexception to the primacy of religious liturgy are two sonnets that accompany Lugo’sgrammar, extolling his talents as a specialist of the Muisca language. These sonnetshave been analysed and translated by Ostler (1995). A part of the remaining texts havebeen published and analysed in Ostler (1999). As an illustration of Muisca text we will reproduce and analyse the Lord’s Prayer asgiven in the catechism accompanying the National Library grammar (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez a e1987: 342; also in Ostler 1999).50 The vocabulary of the National Library grammar provides an indication that the pronun- ciation of the word for ‘six’ indeed involved a sequence of two like vowels, as it writes quihichata a ([kihity ataʔa]) for ‘sixteen’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 240). Lugo has only ta ˆ a e for ‘six’.
  • 132. 2.9 The Muisca language 107 1. chi-paba guate-quyca-n zon-a 1P.PL-father high-country-L be.there-PR.AG ‘Our Father who art in Heaven,’ The past and present participles of zo(n)- ‘to be there (of one person)’ are both zon-a(Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 107, 109). The part following chi-paba is a relative clause a ewith a nominalised verb (zon-a). 2. um-hyca a-chie chi-gu-squa 2P.SG-name 3P-glory 1P.PL-say-IA ‘Hallowed be thy name.’ The expression a-chie chi-gu-squa, literally, ‘we say its glory’, is given as a translationof Spanish reverenciar ‘to hallow’. So the phrase reads: ‘We hallow thy name.’ 3. um-quyca chi-muys huca 2P.SG-country 1P.PL-towards come.PA.AG ‘Thy Kingdom come.’ The postposition -muysa (here shortened to -muys) indicates motion towards a person,indicated by means of a possessive prefix. The form huca is a past participle of hu- ‘tocome’, used as a hortative with a third-person subject. Literally, the text reads: ‘May thycountry come towards us.’ 4. um-pquyquy cielo-na quy-n-uca guehesca sinca-nsie a-quy-n-ynga ¸ 2P.SG-will heaven-L do-NT-PR.AG like here-out.of 3S-do-NT-F ‘Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’ The verb is quy-n- ‘to happen’, ‘to be done’, ‘to be’ (as in sua-z a-quy-n-suca ‘it issunny’), the non-transitive pendant of b-quy- ‘to do’. The present participle quy-n-uca isused in a relative clause. The word guehesca occurs twice in the prayer with the meaning‘as’, ‘like’. The closest form attested in the grammars and vocabularies appears to beguesca ‘the size of’, as in mue m-guesca ‘your size’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 321). a eThe word for ‘here (non-motion)’ is sinaca; it appears as sinca in the present version.The ending -n-sie ∼ -n-xie indicates movement away from a place towards the speaker(cf. Ostler 1993: 13); Lugo (1619: 119) mentions the expression xinaca nxi ‘fromhere’.
  • 133. 108 2 The Chibcha Sphere 5. sua-s puynuca chi-hu-cu ma-ny-sca chi-fun ba chi-hu-cu n-u day-PT every 1P.PL-presence-AL 2S.SG-give-PR.AG 1P.PL-bread today 1P.PL-presence-AL give-IM ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ The phrase sua-s puynuca (with sua ‘day’ in the perlative case) is a fixed expression‘daily’. The verb forms ma-ny-sca (present participle) and n-u (imperative singular) areboth derived from the transitive verb m-ny- ‘to give’. The form chi-hu-cu is a variant ofchi-hu-c ‘to us’. The word ba ‘today’ is usually written fa. 6. nga chi-chubia a-apqua um-u-zi-nga and 1P.PL-debt 3S-be.enough 2S.SG-say-NE-F ‘And forgive us our trespasses.’ The root apqua ‘enough’ is preceded by a third-person subject marker a-, possiblyseparated from it by a boundary-marking glottal stop. Originally, a- in apqua is a prefixitself, considering the fact that pqua- occurs as a verb root with a similar meaning ‘toreach’, ‘to be enough’. The form um-u-zi-nga is derived from gu- ‘to say’, which hasimperative and participle forms uz-u, uz-a without an initial g. However, consideringthat the corresponding third-person form is a-gu-zi-nga, the reason for the loss of initialg appears to be the shape of the second-person prefix (u)m- in this case. At the sametime, the presence of a vowel u in the prefix um- shows that a consonant has been deletedimmediately after the prefix. Otherwise, a form *m-u-zi-nga would be expected. Theexpression a-apqua (ze-)gu-squa-za means ‘to forgive’ (literally ‘not to say it matters’). 7. chie chi-huihi-n a-chubia gue a-apqua chi-gu-squa-za guehesca we 1P.PL-power 3P-debt be 1P.PL-say-IA-NE like ‘As we forgive those who trespass against us.’ The form hui-hi-n, equivalent to hui-na, is found with meanings such as ‘in the powerof’, or referring to the creditor of a debt (Ostler 1993: 11). The expression a-chubia guecan be translated as ‘he who has a debt’. 8. pecado-ca chi-bena-n-zi-nga nzhona a-chie um-ta-zi-nga sin-AL1S.PL-roll-NT-NE-F so.that 3P-light 2S.SG-throw-NE-F ‘And lead us not into temptation.’ The intransitive verb bena-n- is translated as ‘to roll’, ‘to fall from a state’, ‘to fall intothe mud’; its transitive counterpart is m-ena- ‘to wrap’. Initial b in verb roots is lost afterthe transitive b-/m- prefix, which itself then appears as m-. The form nzhona ‘because’,‘so that’ is normally written nzona. The word a-chie has been interpreted in differentways. Ostler (1999: 57) reads it as chie ‘first-person plural object’, an interpretation that
  • 134. 2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) 109fits the context well. This option is furthermore supported by an alternative version ofthe Lord’s Prayer, which reads chie u um-ta-zi-nga ‘do not let go of us’ (from u b-ta- ˆ‘to let go of’). However, chie ‘we’ is not normally found with a prefixed element a-.By contrast, the combination a-chie (with the third-person possessive prefix) occursfrequently in expressions referring to ‘light’, ‘clearness’, ‘honour’ and ‘blessing’ (see, forinstance, a-chie gu- ‘to revere’, ‘to honour’ in line 2 of the Prayer; a-chie gue ‘(he/she is)blessed’; and a-chie-c b-chiby- ‘to look at it in the light’). A possible interpretation couldthen be ‘do not cast away the light (or his blessing), so that we may not roll into sin’.Perhaps, a-chie b-ta- ‘to cast (away) its light’ can be interpreted as an expression ‘toshow the (wrong) way’, ‘to (mis)lead’, because the semantically underspecified verbb-ta- is predominantly used in fixed expressions (see section 2.9.4). The negative future(um-ta-zi-nga) has the value of a negative imperative. 9. nga hataca chi-san um-pquan-ynga-co. and always 1P.PL-behalf ‘But deliver us from evil.’ The literal translation is: ‘And please be sure to always keep watch on our behalf.’ Theelement -co is translated in the National Library grammar as ‘take care that you . . .’,‘do not forget to . . .’; Spanish: ‘mirad que . . .’ (Gonz´ lez de P´ rez 1987: 160). a e 2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa)The Chibchan people formerly known as Tunebo now prefer to use their own ethnicdenomination Uwa or U wa (‘people’); their language is called Uw Cuwa (‘people’stongue’). Uw Cuwa is the closest living relative of Muisca and other extinct languagesof the highlands of Boyac´ and Cundinamarca. But even though Uw Cuwa is in relative aterms the closest living relative of Muisca, it is not in absolute terms closely related toit. Its sound system is very different from that of Muisca and much less complex. The present-day Uwa are established mainly on the northern slopes of the SierraNevada del Cocuy, a high mountain massif situated in the northernmost section of thedepartment of Boyac´ , which borders on Venezuela. The dialects spoken in this area aare known as Cobar´a and Tegr´a and together have the largest number of speakers. A ı ısecond group of Uwa is located further west in the departments of Santander and Nortede Santander near Agua Blanca, and a third one in the tropical lowlands of Araucaand Casanare near a place called Barro Negro. The dialect differences are said to beimportant. Some Uwa are established in Venezuela. In most sources the estimationsof the number of Uw Cuwa speakers oscillate between 1,800 and 3,600. Arango andS´ nchez (1998) calculate the number of ethnic Uwa in Colombia at approximately a7,000.
  • 135. 110 2 The Chibcha SphereTable 2.10 Uw Cuwa (Tunebo) consonant inventory (from Headland 1997) Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Labio-velar GlottalVoiceless stops t k kw ʔVoiced stop bFricatives s s ˇ hNasals m nVibrant rOral semi-vowels w yNasal semi-vowel w ˜ Uricoechea (1871) published a list of words in what he calls the S´nsiga language, ıwhich was spoken near the town of Chita in Boyac´ . The exemplified language was aTunebo (Uw Cuwa) beyond any doubt. Chita is situated south of the Sierra Nevadadel Cocuy massif. If Uricoechea’s information is representative, it may mean that theUwa once occupied a larger part of the Andean highlands and that they may have had ahighland origin themselves. As agriculturalists, the Uwa take advantage of the differentclimatological altitude levels of the mountain slopes. They give a high importance topurification rituals, which make contact with non-Uwa (who are considered impure)difficult. Until the 1980s the Uwa opposed the introduction of writing and schooling(Headland 1997: 6). At present (2001) one of their main concerns is the increasedactivity of oil prospectors in their traditional territory. Among the early work on Uw Cuwa, Rochereau (1926, 1927) is of particular im-portance. More recent studies by Headland (1977, 1997) are based on the Cubar´a and ıTegr´a dialects. The consonant inventory of Uw Cuwa, according to Headland (1997), ıis represented in table 2.10. Not only is the consonant system of Uw Cuwa limited in size, the nasal consonants donot occur in initial position. This may be the reason for the great frequency of b and r ininitial position. The glottal stop can only occur after the first vowel in a word. Consonantclusters are limited to syllable boundaries. Nouns normally end in a vowel a, which canbe suppressed in specific syntactic environments. Uw Cuwa has five vowels: a, e, i, o, u. The location of stress is contrastive. Headland(1997: 10) explicitly states that several additional contrasts can play a role in the firstsyllable of a word. They include glottal closure, aspiration and vowel length. There is alsomention of a high tone, which does not necessarily coincide with the stress. Mel´ ndezeLozano (2000b: 704) gives examples of minimal pairs contrasted by an ascending anda descending tone, such as r´ ka ‘man’s nephew by sister’s side’ versus r` ka ‘clay pot’ u u(r´ ca versus r´ uca in the transcription of Headland 1997: 168). He adds that the vowel u uwith descending tone is phonetically long and that the contrast may be one of vowel
  • 136. 2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) 111length, rather than of tone. The status of tone in Uw Cuwa clearly requires additionalresearch. As other Chibchan languages, Uw Cuwa is predominantly verb-final. The language hasno morphological personal reference markers at all (cf. Ostler 2000: 184). The personalpronouns, asa ‘I’, isa ‘we’; baʔa ‘you (sing.)’, ba: ‘you (pl.)’, are used as subject,object and possessor without any further specification, a situation that is reminiscent ofCuna and the Chocoan languages. Oblique case is indicated by means of suffixes andpostpositions. The goal of a motion verb, such as bi- ‘to go’, remains unmarked. Intransitive sentences the actor is marked by an ergative suffix -at: (138) b´ nit-at eb y´ -ka-ro o a mouse-E maize eat-PN-DV ‘The mouse is eating the maize.’ (Headland 1997: 41) The genitive marker -ay can be used to form possessive pronouns that are not in adependent position. (139) ir eya is-´ y-ro ´ a food that we-G-DV ‘That food is ours.’ (Headland 1997: 20) Non-interrogative verb forms normally take a declarative marker -ro (138) for specificevents or -kw ano for general statements. The marker -ro is also added to nouns andadjectives in predicative constructions to replace the copula (139). If the sentence isinterrogative, an interrogative marker (-ka or -ki for present, -ya or -yi for past) takesthe place of the declarative marker.51 A negation marker -ti- precedes the declarativemarker when required. Tense formation in Uw Cuwa is subject to a complex set of morphophonemic rules(cf. Headland 1997: 27–9). Number, which is not normally indicated, is sometimesreflected by root-internal alternations (140). In other cases number of object and subjectare encoded lexically (141). ʔ a (140) yeʔ n-h´ k-ro yin-h´ k-ro a lift.SG-PA-DV lift.PL-PA-DV ‘He/she rose up.’ ‘They rose up.’ (Headland 1997: 26) (141) kw ik- ʔ eʔ su- ‘cut (one)’ ‘cut (several)’ (Headland 1997: 27) The numeral system of Uw Cuwa shares several of the complexities of the Muiscanumerals, which is evidence of the cultural environment that once united both peoples.51 The endings in -i can be used for greater friendliness (Headland 1997: 52–3).
  • 137. 112 2 The Chibcha SphereUw Cuwa distinguishes cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers and special expressions forcounting days. Single units are counted in relation to a decimal unit that follows, notto the preceding one. These decimal units are called kes(a) ‘foot’ (compare Muiscaquihicha, which has the same meaning). A literal translation of (142) would be ‘two tensand one to the third foot’. (142) uk´ si buk´ y baw´ y kes ubisti52 a a o ´ ten two third foot one ‘twenty-one’ (Headland 1997: 21) 2.11 Yukpa and Magdalena valley CaribanThe Yukpa (or Yuco), are speakers of a complex of closely related Cariban dialects. Theyinhabit the Sierra de Perij´ , west of Lake Maracaibo, on both sides of the Colombian– aVenezuelan border. The Yukpa are the northern neighbours of the Bar´ and were formerly ıalso known as the Motilones mansos ‘tame Motilones’. The number of Colombian Yukpahas been calculated at 1,500 (Robayo Moreno 2000), and is matched with an equalnumber in Venezuela (Jaramillo G´ mez 1987b). Arango and S´ nchez (1998) give a o afigure of about 3,500 for Colombia alone, presumably all speakers of the language. Robayo Moreno (2000) distinguishes two dialect groups in Colombia, Iroka andSokorpa, corresponding to the two principal protected areas (resguardos) that were setapart for the Yukpa in that country. The data presented show significant phonetic variationeven within each of these areas. The Venezuelan varieties of Yukpa have been classifiedinto four groups by Durbin and Seijas (1975). These are, from north to south, Japreria,Macoita–Rionegrino, Pariri–Wasama–Shaparu and Irapa, leaving a fifth dialect, Viakshi,unclassified. On the basis of mutual intelligibility Durbin (1985) concludes that the Yukpa groupconsists of two languages, namely, Japreria and a dialect continuum comprising all theother Yukpa varieties (Yukpa). He states that the closest relatives of the Yukpa groupare extinct languages once spoken along or near the Venezuelan coast, such as Chayma,Cumanagoto and Tamanaco. The Yukpa, in turn, are the closest known linguistic relativesof the Op´ n–Carare group of the Magdalena river valley (department of Santander, oColombia). Durbin and Seijas (1975) reconstruct the consonant inventory of the Yukpa proto-language, which is represented in table 2.11 below. They emphasise the fact that not all52 The cardinal pendant of baw´ y ‘third’ is baya ‘three’. Stress is not consistently indicated in o the examples of the source. Here it has been derived from the entries in the dictionary and the assumption that the rules according to which stress is written are the same as in Spanish orthography.
  • 138. 2.11 Yukpa and Magdalena valley Cariban 113Table 2.11 Proto-Yukpa consonants (after Durbin and Seijas 1975) Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar GlottalObstruents p t c ˇ k ʔFricatives s s ˇ hNasals m nVibrant rGlides w ydistinctions occur in all of the present-day dialects (especially the s/ˇ contrast and the sglottal stop) and indicate the Shaparu dialect as the most conservative. Some of the Colombian dialects have a retroflex affricate [ˇ ], which corresponds to c.[r] or [ ] elsewhere. In general, the Colombian dialects appear to have innovative soundoppositions not found in Venezuela. Consonant clusters, presumably due to previousvowel loss, are frequent in these dialects. (143) Iroka: woˇ epa c . ‘woman’ (Robayo Moreno 2000: 712) Sokorpa: wo epa ‘woman’ (Robayo Moreno 2000: 713) (144) Iroka dz uˇcu ˇ sˇ .. ‘skin’ (Robayo Moreno 2000: 712) Irapa suru ˇ ‘skin’ (Durbin and Seijas 1975: 74) Durban and Seijas reconstruct six vowels, a, e, i, , o, u, which can be either oral,or nasal. The examples suggest that the functionality of the nasal contrast is limited.In Japreria the vowel has a value which is different from those in the other dialects.Japreria is high central [¨], whereas in the other dialects it is high back unrounded [ɯ]. ıHistorically, there is no correspondence between the two sounds. Although it is plausible to assume, given the close lexical similarity, that the Yukpalanguage complex may be similar to the Cariban languages further east, very littlehas been published so far about its morphology and syntax. The available information islexical and phonological. Durbin and Seijas (1975: 75) note that the relational-possessivesuffix (-r , -n , etc.), which is found in other Cariban languages, such as Galibi (cf. Hoff1968), has been reduced to glottal stop or zero. Only the Shaparu dialect has retained aconsonant for that suffix. (145) Japreria, Irapa a ∅ -p´ na-∅ ear-RL ‘someone’s ear’ Macoita, Rionegrino, a ʔ -p´ na-ʔ Wasama, Pariri Shaparu -p´ na-t a When body parts are referred to outside the context of a person to which they belong,a prefix y( )- is added to the root as in (Iroka) y -p´ na [dz pa:na] ‘ear’ (Robayo Moreno a ˇ
  • 139. 114 2 The Chibcha Sphere2000). Constenla Uma˜ a (1991: 60) distils several other typological considerations from nthe scanty data. Yukpa is an SVO language, in which genitives and demonstrativesprecede the head noun, whereas numerals and adjectives follow the head. Leaving asidethe genitive word order, this is the same pattern as the one found in the Chibchanlanguages. The survival well into the twentieth century of indigenous groups in the Op´ n and oCarare river areas in the Colombian department of Santander constitutes unequivocalproof of the advance of Cariban-speaking peoples along the Magdalena valley. Separateword lists for Op´ n and Carare were published by von Lengerke (1878), and further o(undifferentiated) Op´ n–Carare material was collected in 1944 by Pineda and Fornaguera o(1958). The latter source is also presented in Landaburu (1998). It includes an accountof a deadly feud between the Op´ n and the Carare, which brought both groups to the overge of extinction in 1914. Durbin and Seijas (1973a) report that there must have beenat least five speakers in 1944, one of whom was in his twenties. Durbin and Seijas (1973a) noted considerable differences between the Op´ n and oCarare lists of von Lengerke, on the one hand, and the Op´ n–Carare lists of Pineda and oFornaguera, on the other. The latter seems to represent a divergent dialect with respectto the other two. An interesting feature of this dialect is the widespread occurrence ofa suffix -id /-in /-iny , which may be historically identical to the relational-possessivesuffix of other Cariban languages, e.g. in pot´ -id ‘mouth’ (Macoita Yukpa p´ ta-ʔ ) a oand in pan´ -iny ‘ear’ (Macoita Yukpa p´ na-ʔ ). In several respects Op´ n–Carare is a a omore conservative than Yukpa. It conserves the Cariban root *tuna in tun´ -iny ‘water’, awhere Yukpa varieties have k´ na(-ʔ), and the r in yor-id ‘tooth’, where Yukpa has uyi(-ʔ), y or d z ʔ; cf. also Pineda Giraldo’s comparative word list in Landaburu (1998: ˇ531–5). The existence of a Cariban speaking group in an Inter-Andean setting, such as theMagdalena valley, opens the possibility of a wider distribution of Cariban peoples inthe area. For several nations of great historical importance, namely, the Colima, theMuzo, the Panche, the Pant´ gora and the Pijao, a Cariban linguistic affiliation has often abeen proposed. All these peoples have long been extinct, except for the Pijao of thedepartment of Tolima. In 1943 Pijao word lists were collected in the municipality ofOrtega by Alicia and Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, as well as by Roberto Pineda Giraldoand Milc´ades Chaves (Durbin and Seijas 1973b). The Pijao language is now considered ıextinct as well. Durbin and Seijas (1973b) suggest that all these languages should be left unclassi-fied, because the extremely limited data do not provide enough evidence for a Caribanaffiliation. This is certainly true of Panche, for which there are almost no data. The mainreason to assume a Cariban affiliation for Panche is the existence of a large number ofplace names in -aima, -oima and -ima, which are highly suggestive of Cariban toponymy
  • 140. 2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast 115in Venezuela and the Guyanas.53 The Panche terms acaima ‘important personage’andcolima ‘cruel assassin’, mentioned by Durbin and Seijas (1973b: 51), show that this end-ing was also used for human beings. Similar features can be found in the Muzo–Colimaand Pijao domains.54 The Colima, Muzo and Pijao word lists contain a few items ofbasic vocabulary that point at a Cariban connection (cf. Constenla Uma˜ a 1991: 62–3). nIt appears possible to detect a common sound innovation in the three languages, whensome of these lexical items are compared to their counterparts in other Cariban languages,such as Galibi (Hoff 1968). (146) Pijao: t´ na a Galibi: tu:na ‘water’ Pijao: t´ pe a Colima, Muzo: tapa Galibi: to:pu ‘stone’ The Cariban elements found in Colima, Muzo and Pijao do not suggest a specificrelationship with Op´ n–Carare and Yukpa. They may reflect an older Cariban invasion oof the Magdalena valley, or they may represent conservative traits that have not beenpreserved in the northern languages. For instance, the Pijao word for ‘moon’ n´ nauis found in many Cariban languages, but not in Op´ n–Carare and Yukpa, where it is okan´ -ny and k´ nu, respectively (Durbin and Seijas 1973b: 49). o u 2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coastTwo closely related Arawakan languages are located in the area separating the northernAndes from the Caribbean coast, Guajiro and Paraujano. With more than 300,000speakers Guajiro or Wayuunaiki (‘language of the Wayuu people’) may very well bethe fastest growing indigenous language of the area covered by this book. Its originalhomeland is the Guajira peninsula, shared by Colombia and Venezuela. The Guajirolanguage can be subdivided into two main dialects, a northern peninsular dialect calledarribero or winpum in ‘towards the waters’ and a southern inland dialect called abajeroor wopum in ‘towards the roads’ (P´ rez van Leenden 2000). e A large part of the Guajira peninsula belongs to Colombia and, consequently, a ma-jority of the Guajiro people used to reside in that country. However, this situation hasbeen reversed in the past decades. A vigorous colonisation process is taking place inthe Venezuelan state of Zulia towards the shores of Lake Maracaibo and the town ofMaracaibo itself. Alvarez (1994: 10) records the following increase in the statistics ofthe Guajiro speakers in Venezuela: 16,793 in 1950; 52,000 in 1982; 179,318 in 1992.This last figure covers more than 50 per cent of the present-day indigenous population53 The ending -im is used as an augmentative in several Cariban languages of the Guyanas, e.g. in Trio (Eithne Carlin, personal communication).54 Personal names, which occur abundantly in the historical sources, are rarely exploited in linguis- tic reconstruction. The Muzo area, for instance, is characterised by a great incidence of personal names in -p´, e.g. Boquip´, Quinancep´ (Rodr´guez Baquero 1995). ı ı ı ı
  • 141. 116 2 The Chibcha Spherein Venezuela. The Colombian Guajiro have been calculated at 144,000 (Arango andS´ nchez 1998). The spectacular growth in the number of Venezuelan Guajiro is dif- aficult to explain by natural increase alone. Immigration from Colombia and statisticalunderexposure in the past may provide an explanation. By contrast, Paraujano or A˜ un is on the verge of extinction. The Paraujano (‘beach n´people’, from Guajiro palauhe ‘from by the beach’) inhabit the coast and islands betweenMaracaibo and the Guajira peninsula. The last speakers of the language live in villagesof pile-dwellings located in the Lagoon of Sinamaica, north of Maracaibo.55 In the 1980sonly a few aged people continued to speak the language (Patte 1986). Alvarez (1994)estimates the number of Paraujano speakers at less than a dozen.56 As a consequence of the Caribbean background of Guajiro and Paraujano, they donot share many typological features with the languages of the Andean and Chibchanspheres. Together with Lokono, the Arawakan language of the Guyanas, and the extinctArawakan languages of the Caribbean islands, Guajiro and Paraujano constitute a north-ern, Caribbean branch of the Arawakan language family (Payne 1991a), referred to byPayne as Ta-Arawak on the account of the shape of the first-person prefix, which is ta-(or da-) in these languages. This feature separates Guajiro and Paraujano from easternColombian Arawakan languages, such as Achagua and Piapoco, which use the morewidespread Arawakan marker nu- for that purpose. In relation to Lokono and the Arawakan languages of the Lesser Antilles (St Vincent,Dominica), Guajiro is phonologically innovative. At least one innovation, the devel-opment of *k to glottal stop in intervocalic position, has affected borrowings fromSpanish, e.g. pa:ʔa ‘cow’ (from Spanish vaca). Some of the first Amerindian wordsborrowed by the Spaniards after their occupation of the Caribbean islands, as well asterms recorded in Hispaniola by the sixteenth-century chronicler Fern´ ndez de Oviedo, ahave a shape that could be derived directly from Guajiro (cf. Taylor 1978: 123). It sug-gests that Guajiro must have been closely related to Ta´no, the extinct native language ı55 It is to settlemen