Adelaar Willem, Muysken Pieter. The languages of the Andes
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
344 3 The Inca Sphere
3.4.3 Mochica sample texts
The Mochica texts that have been preserved from the colonial period are all religious
texts pertaining to Roman Catholic faith and practice. It is likely that all these texts were
translated into Mochica from Latin or from Spanish, although they certainly provide
a good impression of the structure of the language. A substantial corpus of such texts
can be found in Carrera Daza’s grammar of 1644 (Altieri 1939), and some have been
transposed into a nineteenth century version by Middendorf (1892). Middendorf also
included a few short sample texts on the daily life of the Mochica people at the end of
the nineteenth century. In what follows we will first present the Lord’s Prayer in Carrera
Daza’s seventeenth-century version of Mochica, and subsequently a short text about
fishing practices recorded by Middendorf.
The Lord’s Prayer
1. mœich ef, ac az loc cu¸cia-ng-nic
we.G father.RL that 2S be heaven-G-L
‘Our Father who art in heaven.’
The relativising element ac is explained by Middendorf (1892: 105) as a form of
the verb ac/ak ‘to look’, which he associates with the habit of the Mochica people to
introduce sentences with the word ak-an ‘(now) look!’ However, since ac is followed by
the second-person subject marker -az,wemust conclude that ac has become part of the
clause and that it functions as a relative clause marker.
2. tzhœng oc mang lic-œm mœcha
you.G name.RL be.DE make.PS holy
‘Hallowed be thy name.’
The noun oc/¯ok must be in its relational form, which apparently is identical to the
absolute form (if such a form indeed exists). The expression lic mœcha means ‘to
worship’ (Villareal 1921: 26).
143
3. piyc-an ˜nof tzhœng cu¸cia-s
give-2S.IM we.AC you.G heaven-RL
‘Thy kingdom come.’
The Mochica text literally says: ‘Give us your heaven!’
4. ei-œp-ma-ng tzhœng pol-œng mœn
do-PS-DE-3S you.G will-RL as
‘Thy will be done.’
143
The Quechua verb muˇca- ‘to worship’, ‘to kiss’ is probably related to mœcha; the direction of
borrowing may have been either way.
3.4 The Mochica language 345
The verb ei-œp is a variant of ai-ep, the passive of ai ‘to make’.
5. mo œiz-i capœc cu¸cia-ng-nic mœn
this earth-G on.top.of heaven-G-L as
‘On earth as it is in heaven.’
6. aio in-eng in-eng-ˆo mœich xllon piyc-an ˜nof allˆo mo-lun
that when-G when-G-AJ we.G food.RL give-2S.IM we.AC also this-day
‘Give us this day our daily bread.’
The form in is an interrogative root meaning ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘which’. The expression
in-eng in-eng-o is translated as ‘habitual’ in Middendorf’s translation of the Prayer. The
form xllon/
’
on is the relational form of xllon-quic/
’
on-kik ‘food’.
7. efqu-ec-an ˜nof ixll-œss
forgive-AP-2S.IM we.AC sin-RL
‘And forgive us our trespasses.’
The verb efco/efko is glossed as ‘to save’, ‘to free’ by Middendorf; -co may be the
transitivising suffix. The suffix -œss may be the same as the one used with adjectives to
form abstract relational nouns (cf. pe˜n, pe˜n-œss).
8. aie acan aix efco xllangmu-ss-ei-o mœich, ¸cio mœn
like that 1S.PL free enemy-RL-G-AJ we that like
‘Asweforgive those who trespass against us.’
The expression aie kan is discussed in Middendorf (1892: 159); it means ‘in the same
way as ...’; the element kan is frequently used to introduce correlative constructions. In
sentence 8 acan also has a correlative function, in which it interacts with ¸cio. The initial
vowel in acan may be due to interference with the verb ac/ak ‘to look’; cf. sentence 1. The
element aix is a variant of the personal reference marker eix. The form xllangmu-ss-ei-o
can be translated as ‘those (the sins) of our enemies’.
9. amoz tocœn ˜nof xllangmu-ss-e mœllœc-zœr-e-nic nam-nœm
do.not let we.AC enemy-RL-G talk-N.RL-G-L fall-F.SP
‘And lead us not into temptation.’
The negative adverb amoz/amoss is used in negative imperatives, in which case the
verb that follows has no imperative ending -an. The verb tocœn ‘to let’ is listed as tokn
by Middendorf (1892: 90). The verb mœllœc ‘to talk’, ‘to reason’ is listed as muillk,
m˚ullk and m¨all¨ak (Middendorf 1892: 88, 162). The ending -(i)zœr/-iss¨ar indicates an
abstract deverbal noun in its relational form. A literal translation would be: ‘Do not let
346 3 The Inca Sphere
us fall into the enemy’s talk!’
10. lecɥna-n efco ˜nof piss-i-nqu-ich
rather-LS free-2S.IM we.AC bad-G-L-AB
‘But deliver us from evil.’
The word lec
ɥ
na/jechna ‘more’ (cf. lec
ɥ
/jech ‘head’) is used as a modifier with
adjectives. The form in -n (lec
ɥ
na-n)may have been used in an adverbal function,
since it conveys the meaning of ‘rather’. The verb efco may be read as efco-n,where
-n is the postvocalic imperative marker.
144
The analysis of the form pissinquich ‘(to
free) from evil’ is problematic. It contains the root piss ‘bad’ and the ablative marker
-ich. The intervening element has been interpreted as -ing- (cf. Middendorf 1892: 172),
in a possible parallelism with another form, i
’
i-ng-ich ‘(to free) from sin’ mentioned
by the same author (p. 168). Nevertheless, the form pissinquich is repeated several
times in Carrera Daza’s explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, so that an error is not likely.
In the same context, the expression infierno-ng-niqu-ich ‘from inside hell’ contains a
sequence of the locative affix -nic and the ablative marker -ich, suggesting a similar
analysis for pissinquich (from piss-i-niqu-ich with a syncopated vowel); the element -i-
preceding -n(i)c may represent a genitive case marker. Middendorf himself is in doubt
as elsewhere he transcribes the form in question as piss¨an-k-ich (p. 105) without further
explanation.
A conversation about fishing (Middendorf 1892: 186–7)
1. amoch kotsk-¨ad ssi¯aj, m¯ach-n¨am
’
ak
let.us.go throw-SP fishing-net catch-F.SP fish
‘Let us go and throw out the net, in order to catch fish!’
The form amoch is a defective verb with the meaning ‘let us do/go’. Its complement
is expressed by the supine of the following verb. The verb k˚utsk ‘to send’, ‘to throw’
(<*cœtzhc-)isrecorded in Middendorf’s verb list (1892: 86–91). A verb m¯a´ch ‘to seize’,
‘to catch’ is also recorded in that list.
2. m¨an ang chi oˇs
’
ak
here 3S be many fish
‘There is a lot of fish here.’
3. tarr siet-an ang chi ˜n¯ass ssi´ofe
more far-DG 3S be nice that be
‘Further away that is where the best place is.’
144
Alternatively, one may interpret the final -n in lec
ɥ
na-n as a cliticised imperative marker an.
Whether or not this is a realistic interpretation requires further research.
3.4 The Mochica language 347
We tentatively analyse the suffix -an as an adverbial degree marker.
4. ts´ak-an ssi¯aj ˜ni-nek
carry-2S.IM net sea-L
‘Carry the net into the sea!’
The verb ‘to carry’ is listed as tsak (<*tzhac-)inMiddendorf’s verb list. The post-
position nek is a variant of nik ‘in’, ‘into’; a genitive stem marker is lacking in the word
for ‘sea’ ˜ni.
5. pok-an tarr siet-an ni-ng-nek
enter-IM.2S more far-DG sea-G-L
‘Go further into the water!’
The word ni translated as ‘water’ is probably the same as ˜ni ‘sea’.
6. min ¨anta ang m¯ach-¨ar
’
ak
here not 3S catch-PS fish
‘Fish cannot be caught here.’
7. m¨an ang chi kochkoch
here 3S be seaweed
‘There is seaweed here.’
8. akop t¨ak-p-ang ssi¯aj
already withhold-PS-3S net
‘The net is being withheld.’
The adverb ak means ‘already’; akop appears to have the same meaning. The verb
t¨ak-p could not be found in the word lists; because of its shape it appears to be a passive,
and so it is translated by Middendorf; the verb t˚uk ‘to go’ does not fit this context.
9. orronch-an ssi¯aj
pull.out-2S.IM net
‘Pull out the net!’
The verb ‘to pull’ is recorded as orrnch in Middendorf’s verb list.
10. m¯ach-an mo sop
catch-2S.IM this knot
‘Get hold of this knot!’
11. ’tan lok esta tuij-u-n¨am
not want NE come.out-EU-F.SU
‘It (the net) does not want to move.’
348 3 The Inca Sphere
The verb tui
’
(from *tuxll) ‘to come out’ is recorded in Middendorf’s verb list. The
second u in this verb form is a euphonic extension of the root. The elements tan and
esta are both part of the negation. The apostrophe in ’tan suggests that Middendorf
considers this form to be an abbreviated variant of the negative adverb ¨anta. The verb
lok ‘to want’ lacks a third-person subject marker here; its complement is indicated by
the future supine in -n¨am.
12. amoch orronch-¨ad isk-¨ar-tot-¨an
let.us.go/do pull.out-SU all-G-with-PL
‘Let us pull all together!’
The form isk-isfrom iss¨ak (<*iz¸cœc) ‘all’, genitive issk-¨ar-¯o. The marker -tot indi-
cates ‘in combination with’, ‘in the company of’, ‘with’. Normally, it does not follow a
genitive stem (Middendorf 1892: 98).
13. akop tuij-m-ang ssi¯aj
already come.out-VE-3S net
‘The net is already out.’
The verb tuij is the same as tui
’
; see sentence 11. The analysis of the verb form is
problematic because it contains an unexplained derivational affix -m(e)-,which is also
found elsewhere in the same text (Middendorf 1892: 187): tuij-me-ko-n¨am ‘in order to
make (the blood) come out’.
14. mokats (mukaits) mo
’
ak-¨an
take this fish-PL
‘Take these fish!’
The verb mokats or mukaits (<*mucaitzh, Altieri 1939: 44) is a defective imperative
form with the meaning ‘take!’
15. amoss nam-ko uij-e kap¨ak
do.not fall-T earth-G upon
‘Do not drop them on the ground!’
According to Middendorf (1892: 63), the genitive of the noun uij is uij-¨ar-´o,
145
not
*uij-ei-¯o;however, a genitive interpretation seems to be the only one possible. From a
historical point of view, the word uij (<*œiz) ‘earth’, ‘dust’ is remarkable because of the
change *z > j,which is not attested elsewhere. Apart from Middendorf, all published
sources, including Lehmann, recorded a sibilant in this form.
145
The notation -´o is clearly equivalent to -¯o.
3.4 The Mochica language 349
16. chimpo-n sop mov, ma-n¨am m¨aich
take-2S.IM three corvina
146
, eat-SU we
‘Take three corvinas for us to eat!’
Middendorf’s verb list contains a verb chimp ‘to take’; also chinp ‘to lay apart’, ‘to
separate’; the form in the text suggests that the element -o was part of the root. Sop is
a short form for sop¨at ‘three’. Ma-n¨am is the future supine of man ‘to eat, drink’ (also
man-an¨am).
17. llollek
’
ak t-¯ıˇseiˇs poj
other fish F-1S.PL1S.PL sell
‘The other fish we shall sell.’
The verb poj (<*pol) means ‘to sell’; the sentence apparently contains double personal
reference marking in a future construction (t-iˇs-poj).
18. i˜nei˜n lok ma-n¨am
’
ak
whowho want eat-SU fish
‘Who wants to eat fish?’
The repetition of the interrogative pronoun (e)i˜n ‘who’ indicates a plural. As in
sentence 11 the verb lok lacks a third-person subject marker.
19. chuken e toij ˜ni-ng-e-nek-ich
just.now be come.out sea-G-EU-L-AB
‘They have just now come out of the sea.’
The verb toij is the same as tui
’
; see 11–13. The first vowel e in ˜ni-ng-e-nek-ich can
only be a euphonic extension.
20. chipan chi-ng siam
still be-3S alive
‘They are still alive.’
In this sentence chi ‘to be’ is used as an auxiliary with the root siam ‘to live’.
21. kˇotsk-an ja
’
ak kap¨ak, tem ang j ˚um ¨anta
throw-2S.IM water fish on.top.of, so.that 3S die not
‘Throw water upon the fish, so they will not die!’
The form k˘otsk is an orthographic variant of kotsk / k˚utsk (see also the first sentence
of this text). A genitive stem marker is lacking before kap¨ak. The root tem (from tem
146
Corvina:atype of fish popular in Peru (Sciaena gilberti). In one of Middendorf’s word lists
m¯ov is listed as cachema fish (Cynoscion analis).
350 3 The Inca Sphere
‘to love’, ‘to ask for’) is used as a conjunction in combination with the negative marker
¨anta.
22. amoss tokan
’
ang-nek
do.not leave sun-L
‘Do not leave them in the sun!’
A genitive marker is lacking here before -nek;acommon alternative is the expression
’
ang-ik ‘in the sun’.
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya
In spite of the fact that Puquina was recognised as a ‘general language’ during the
initial part of the colonial period, it rapidly became extinct without being adequately
documented. The Puquina linguistic area covered a relatively large but fragmented ter-
ritory, exposing the main reason for its decline. Successive invasions, in particular of
Aymara-speaking peoples, had broken the unity of the Puquina nation long before the
Spaniards reached Peru. In the first half of the fifteenth century the most important
Puquina-speaking group were the Colla, who had their centre of power west of Lake
Titicaca in the present-day department of Puno. During their expansion, the Incas subju-
gated the Colla, who fiercely resisted submission. The chronicler Cabello Valboa (1586)
relates how the Incas sealed their victory as the Colla king Colla Capac was taken to
Cuzco and sacrificed to the Sun (cf. Torero 1987). Afterwards, a series of new rebellions
weakened the position of the Colla even further.
Our knowledge of the distribution of the Puquina-speaking peoples is based on two
sources of information: toponymy and colonial documents. Torero (1987) concludes that
the Puquina language was predominant in three areas: (i) the altiplano and mountains
surrounding Lake Titicaca, with the exception of its Aymara-speaking southwestern
shore; this area includes Charazani, home of the Callahuaya practitioners of traditional
medicine, who conserve a professional language with a Puquina lexical basis, and two of
the principal islands of the lake, Amantan´ı and Taquile; (ii) the region between Arequipa
and Tacna on the Pacific side of southern Peru (the area of the historical Coli people);
and (iii) an area in the Bolivian highlands situated between the towns of Sucre and
Potos´ı. There are indications, however, that the Puquina were cosmopolitan enough
not to remain confined to these areas. The colonial church at Andahuaylillas, not far
from Cuzco, contains a multilingual wall inscription in five languages, one of which is
Puquina.
It is not sure when the Puquina language eventually disappeared. The last mentions
of its existence date from the years shortly before the independence of Peru and concern
the area east of Arequipa. This is also the region where the Puquina toponymy is most
conspicuous: place names ending in -baya, -coa and -laque (e.g. Socabaya, Calacoa,
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 351
Matalaque) are diagnostic of Puquina presence. Interestingly, the mountainous interior
of the department of Moquegua today harbours an Aymara-, a Quechua- and a Spanish-
speaking area. All three have predominant Puquina toponymy.
The only grammar of Puquina known to have existed was that of Alonso de Barzana
of 1590. Unfortunately, it has not survived. The principal source for the language is
a religious text, Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum, published in Naples by Ger´onimo de
Or´e (1607). It contains prayers, instructions for confession and catechisms in Quechua,
Aymara, Puquina, Guaran´ı and Mochica. A first analysis of the Puquina material was
made by de la Grasserie (1894), who published a vocabulary, grammatical notes and
transcribed texts. A second attempt is Torero’s unpublished doctoral dissertation of 1965.
Avocabulary and a historical study of the Puquina language have appeared in Torero
(1987), some grammatical notes and comparative remarks in Torero (1992). Most of
the analytic observations on Puquina in this section have been inspired by Torero’s
work.
147
A comparison with the Callahuaya language makes it clear that Puquina must have
been subdivided into rather divergent local varieties. One such dialect provided the basis
for most of the lexicon of Callahuaya, its morphology being derived from that of the
surrounding Quechua. The variety underlying the Callahuaya lexicon was certainly not
the Puquina known to Or´ebut rather a sister dialect of it. For instance, whereas many
Puquina words begin with a consonant cluster consisting of s followed by a stop, the
corresponding Callahuaya words do not exhibit that initial s,asinPuquina sper ‘four’,
Callahuaya pil
y
; Puquina scana ‘silver’, Callahuaya qena.Inother cases, the two lan-
guages may have been more similar than the sources suggest. Present-day Callahuaya
distinguishes between velar and uvular articulation positions, and has a contrast be-
tween plain, aspirated and glottalised stops. Although Or´e’s material is ambiguous in
this respect, it is probable that the variety of Puquina with which he was familiar knew
such distinctions too. There are several spellings suggesting the existence of differ-
ent stops and fricatives in the velar–uvular area, e.g. <c>, <qu>, <k>, <h>, <g>,
<gh>, <x>.
Even though the distinction between the front vowels e and i, and between the back
vowels o and u may not have had a heavy functional load, there is reason to assume that
these contrasts were distinctive, as is illustrated by se e [seʔe] ‘heart’ versus sipi- ‘to
beat’, and so ‘two’ versus suma- (∼¸cuma-) ‘to live’. Cases such as se e (∼sehe, ∼see)
‘heart’, gui in ‘like’, and qui illa- ‘to think’ suggest the presence of an intervocalic
glottal stop. Consonant clusters of two consonants in initial and final position, and of
three consonants in word-internal position occur, but the pronunciation of such sequences
147
Torero (2002) contains a detailed analysis of Puquina, which became available after the com-
pletion of this chapter.
352 3 The Inca Sphere
(e.g. mocsca- ‘to bring together’) is open to different interpretations. Nasal consonants
sometimes occur after a consonant in word-final position, either suggesting a vocalic
realisation, or the presence of an unwritten schwa-type vowel. This can be the case
when the instrumental case suffix -m ‘with’ or a rare genitive suffix -n (only attested in
Dios-n Yglesia ‘God’s Church’) are added to a base ending in a consonant.
148
The stops
k (<c>/<qu>) and p tend to become voiced (or even reduced to an approximant [w] in
the latter case) in intervocalic position, as will be illustrated in some of the examples that
follow. The fact that in some lexical items either only <s>,oronly <¸c> occur in initial
position leaves open the possibility that there may have been two distinct sibilants ([s],
[ˇs]) as in seventeenth-century Cuzco Quechua.
149
For the remainder, the sound inventory
of Puquina may have been similar to that of Aymara and Quechua.
Not surprisingly, the Puquina lexicon contains several borrowings from both these
languages. Some of the borrowed items underwent important phonological adaptations,
e.g. Puquina macu [maku] ‘king’, Aymara mal
y
ku, and Puquina suca [suka] ‘youngest’,
Aymara sul
y
ka, Cuzco Quechua sul
y
k’a.However, in other cases of lexical similar-
ity Puquina may have been the source language, as in Aymara layqa ‘witch’ from
Puquina reega (Callahuaya reqa ‘cat’, ‘witch’). The Aymara interrogative stem k
h
iti
‘who’, which is absent from the sister language Jaqaru, is reminiscent of Callahuaya
k
h
i:‘what’ (Puquina qui-) and Callahuaya ki, k
h
iru ‘who’. (The element -ti could be
associated with the Aymara negative marker.)
From a morphosyntactic point of view the Puquina language is somewhat different
from the surrounding Andean languages. Although the main morphological device of
the language is suffixation, there is a set of possessive pronominal elements which are
confined to a position before the head noun. These elements are free forms, rather than
prefixes, because they may be separated from the noun by an adjective, as in (303)
and (304):
(303) no atot hucha-nch
[Aymara, Quechua hucha ‘guilt’]
1P.SG great sin-DV
‘It is my great sin.’
(Or´e 1607: 164)
(304) po coma hucha
2P all sin
‘all your sins’
(Or´e 1607: 164)
148
The normal genitive construction is by juxtaposition following the order modifier–modified. The
two parts of the construction are optionally separated by a possessive pronoun chu ‘his/her/its’
(Torero 1994a).
149
In contradistinction to the transcription of other Andean languages, such as Muisca, Mochica,
Chol´on and Allentiac, the (infrequent) symbol <x> clearly did not refer to [ˇs] in Puquina (cf.
Torero 1995).
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 353
Table 3.22 Puquina personal and possessive
pronouns
Personal pronouns Possessive pronouns
1 pers. sing. ni no
2 pers. pi po
3 pers. chu chu
1 pers. plur. se˜nse˜n
However, with some adjectives the reverse occurs (305):
(305) puta po hucha sisqu-eno Dios
all 2P sin know-AG God
‘God, who knows all your sins’
(Or´e 1607: 167)
Personal and possessive pronouns in Puquina are reminiscent of the prefixes used for
personal reference in most of the Arawakan languages. This is one of the main reasons
why Puquina has occasionally been presented as genetically related to Arawakan, the
lexical similarities being very limited (cf. Torero 1992). Table 3.22 shows the personal
and possessive pronouns of Puquina.
The pronouns for first person singular, second and third person can be compared to the
personal reference prefixes in Arawakan languages. For instance, in I˜napari (Madre de
Dios, southeastern Peru) the singular personal reference prefixes nu-, pi- and ru- indicate
first, second person singular and third person feminine, respectively (Parker 1995).
Person of subject and object are indicated in the suffix part of the verb form in a system
of transitions typologically reminiscent of Aymara and Quechua. In the examples (306)
and (307) a first- and a second-person subject are indicated by means of the suffixes
-qu(i) ∼ -gu(i) and -p(i) ∼ -u(i)- ∼ -v(i), respectively.
(306) ni-ch baptiza-gu-ench yqui-m chuscu-m Spiritu.sancto-m men-`ut
I-E baptise-1S.SG-DV father-CO son-CO holy.spirit-CO name-L
‘I baptise (you) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.’
(Or´e 1987: 37)
(307) qui˜n too-pi, raago aya-y inque atago aya-y
what
150
bring-2S man child-IR or woman child-IR
‘What do you bring (to the church), a boy or a girl?’
(Or´e 1607: 69)
150
The interrogative stem ‘what’ is generally found as qui˜n when used independently. In combi-
nations it is qui-; e.g. quigui ‘how’.