Adelaar Willem, Muysken Pieter. The languages of the Andes
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
354 3 The Inca Sphere
The addition of a suffix -s- before the subject marker generates an inverse relation in
which the original subject marker refers to an object and the actor becomes third person:
(308) apa pampacha-gue-s-p-anch
[Quechua pampaˇca- ‘to forgive’]
not forgive-F-I-2O-DV
‘He will definitely not forgive you.’
(Or´e 1607: 167)
(309) patero-s cha-que-s-c-anch
father-E scold-F-I-1O.SG-DV
‘The Father will scold me. ‘
(Or´e 1607: 167)
As in Quechua, a special first-person subject ending obtains in the future tense:
-(gui-)na:
(310) ni-cha co apa qui.illa-su ata-gui-na
I-E this not think-SN ask-F-1S.SG.F
‘I will ask you about what you have not thought of.’
(Or´e 1607: 167)
The imperative mood has endings -ta for second- person and -anta for third-person
subject; the transition of a second-person subject with a first-person object has the ending
-suma:
(311) ama scalli-ta
[Quechua ama ‘do not’]
do.not be.afraid-2S.IM
‘Do not be afraid!’
(Or´e 1607: 167)
(312) Dios huacaycha-s-p-anta [Quechua waqayˇca- ‘to protect’]
God protect-I-2O-3S.IM
‘May God protect you!’
(Or´e 1607: 167)
(313) catalla-suma no ha-r`ey
151
listen-2S.1O.IM 1P.SG son-VO.MS
‘Listen to me, my son!’
(Or´e 1607: 166)
Declarative predicates are normally followed by a suffix -(a)nch or -(e)nch,asin
(303), (306) and in (308)–(309). (The vowel alternation is not yet well understood.) The
absence of this suffix entails an interrogative interpretation of the predicate, as can be
deduced from the interaction of questions and answers in (314):
(314) cuha˜na-pi cuha ˜ne-qu-ench
believe-2S believe-1S.SG-DV
‘Do you believe?’ ‘I do’.
(Or´e 1607: 126–7)
151
The form ha-r`ey probably contains a vocative element -re, used for addressing men; women
are addressed with -ye.Amore regular alternative for ha-r`ey is haya-re (Or´e 1607: 173).
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 355
Number is indicated in the verb form, as can been seen in (315) and (316):
(315) qui˜n hata-i Yglesia-huananac
what want-3S Church-AB
‘What does he/she want from the Church?’
(Or´e 1607: 69)
(316) qui˜n hata-nu-y Yglesia-huananac
what want-PL-3S Church-AB
‘What do they want from the Church?’
(Or´e 1607: 70)
The use of derivational suffixes, in the case of the causative, can be illustrated by
pairs such as halla- ‘to die’ and halla-na- ‘to kill’ (de la Grasserie 1894: 9, 16); yti- ‘to
receive’ and yt-na- ‘to hand over’ (Or´e 1607: 223).
The most frequent nominalisations are characterised by the suffixes -(s)so∼-(s)su
‘stative participle’ (310) (317), -no ‘infinitive’ (318), and -eno (with suppression of a
previous non-high vowel) ‘agentive’ (319).
(317) no hucha pampacha-sso asch-anta
1P.SG sin forgive-SN be-3S.IM
‘Let my sins be forgiven!’
(Or´e 1607: 127)
(318) vi˜naya ¸cuma-no [Aymara wi ˜naya ‘eternal’]
eternal live-IF
‘eternal life’
(Or´e 1607: 70)
(319) regah coa uppall-eno me ˜n chat-eno-ui Padre yna Visitador yna
witch idol worship-AG man denounce-AG-2S Father either Visitador or
‘Have you denounced the witch and the idolater to the Father or to the
Visitador?’
(Or´e 1607: 172)
In sentence (319) there may be two instances of the agentive morpheme. As illustrated
in chatenoui (from chata- ‘to denounce’, ‘to accuse’; Aymara and Quechua ˇc’ata-), the
second-person subject affix in its form -ui [wi] is often found attached to what is formally
an agentive nominalisation. Tentatively, this form may be interpreted as a habitual past,
or a general preterit. The gloss ‘either ...or ...’ for yna is a context-bound translation;
if it is correct, the expected case marker must have been suppressed. Alternatively, yna
may itself be interpreted as a case marker (-na is ‘locative case’).
Subordination with identical subjects is frequently indicated by a suffix -tahua (or
-rahua), as in (320). (The example suggests vowel suppression before the reflexive suffix
-sca-,assooften occurs in the Aymaran languages; cf. section 3.3.4).
(320) ca po sehe sip-sca-tahua a-ta
now 2P heart beat-RF-SU.SS say-2S.IM
‘Now say, while beating yourself on the breast: ...!’
(Or´e 1607: 127)
356 3 The Inca Sphere
Puquina has a rich system of case markers, consisting of suffixes and postpositions,
some of which can be combined. The direct object is not marked for case, but the language
has an ergative case marker -s (∼ -sa), which is attached to a noun or a pronoun referring
to the actor of a transitive construction (321).
(321) ˜nu-s baptiza-s-pi
who-E baptise-I-2O
‘Who baptised you?’
(Or´e 1607: 167)
The examples (306) and (309)–(310) contain further instances of ergative construc-
tions. However, the ergative marker found in (306) and (310) is -ch(a), rather than -s,
and the two may not have exactly the same function. Torero (1987: 358) analyses -ch as
a marker of a second-person object encoded in a combination with a first-person subject.
A suffix -ch also marks ablative case, which could provide yet another interpretation for
these cases.
(322) po caru-ch pacari-eno Iesus po haya coha-na-ssuma
[Quechua paqari- ‘to appear’]
2P womb-AB appear-AG Jesus 2P son see-CA-2S.1O.IM
‘Show us to your son Jesus, who came forth from your womb!’
(Or´e 1607: 401)
Other frequent case markers are -m ‘instrumental–comitative’, ‘coordinative’ (306),
-(u)t ‘locative’ (306), -na ‘locative’, -guta ‘allative’ and -gua ‘benefactive’. The plural of
nouns is marked with -gata or -cuna (from Quechua -kuna). Topics can be emphasised
with -ghe or -x (possibly the same suffix), indefiniteness and concatenation (‘also’, ‘too’)
with -hamp.
The existence of the Callahuaya language has been attested in the area surrounding
the town of Charazani in the province of Bautista Saavedra (department of La Paz).
Girault (1984: 24) mentions Curva, Chajaya and Khanlaya as communities where the
language is used. A different name for the language is Machaj juyay [maˇc’ax huyay]
‘language of the fellow-countrymen’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968). Callahuaya is not used
for daily communication but in curing rituals by professionally trained healers. These
healers are Quechua speakers but master the Callahuaya language as a second language
in the context of their training. By tradition, only male Callahuaya can become healers,
and there are no indications that the language was ever used as anyone’s mother tongue.
Only a few older healers still know how to speak it (Muysken 1997b: 428).
There is an extensive ethnographic literature on the Callahuaya people and their curing
practices (Bastien 1978; Girault 1984; R¨osing 1990). Among the authors that have
supplied extensive information on the Callahuaya lexicon in particular we may mention
Oblitas Poblete (1968), Girault (1989) and Aguil´o (1991). Observations on Callahuaya
phonology and grammar can be found in Stark (1972b) and in Muysken (1997b).
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 357
The main characteristic of Callahuaya stressed in literature is the fact that it combines
Quechua morphology with a vocabulary that is predominantly Puquina. The following
two examples cited in Muysken (1997b: 431) illustrate this:
(323) ˇc’ana-ˇci-rqa-yki isna-pu-na-yki-pax
call-CA-PA-1S.2O go-RS-FN-2S-B
‘I had you called so that you can go.’
(Oblitas Poblete 1968: 44)
(324) mi:-qa l
y
al
y
ioxa-ku-x-mi aˇca-n
human.being-TO well eat-RF-AG-AF be-3S
‘The man is a very greedy eater.’
(Oblitas Poblete 1968: 40)
In (323) and (324) all the suffixes are from Quechua (cf. section 3.2.6 ). In contrast,
the roots can be associated with lexical items found in Puquina (Torero 1987): ˇc’ana- ‘to
call’, ‘to shout’ (Puquina cha-); isna- ‘to go’ (Puquina es-); mi: ‘human being’ (Puquina
me˜n, mi˜n); oxa- ‘to eat’ (Puquina occa-, oxa-, uxa-); aˇca- ‘to be’ (Puquina ascha-, acha-).
The only remaining root l
y
al
y
i is reminiscent of Quechua al
y
i(n) ‘good’.
Stark (1972b: 206) reports that in a basic vocabulary list of 200 words, 70 per cent of
the vocabulary is from Puquina, 14 per cent from Quechua, 14 per cent from Aymara
and 2 per cent from Uru–Chipaya. In a less selective perspective, many Callahuaya
lexical items are not relatable to any of these languages. A Tacanan influx has been
suggested (Muysken 1997b), but even then there are items that remain unaccounted for.
It should be emphasised that only a fraction of the Puquina lexicon is known, so that
possible similarities with Callahuaya are inevitably missed. Alb´o (1989) observes that
Callahuaya has native terms for several objects and animals that were introduced through
contact with the Spaniards, a situation not normally found in the other Andean languages.
The replacement of common words, even if of foreign origin, underscores the character
of Callahuaya as a secret professional language.
When comparing Puquina and Callahuaya vocabulary items, it is difficult to detect
regular sound correspondences. Words may be either the same, or formally related in
a non-systematic way. Borrowed roots are sometimes extended with a (non-Quechuan)
suffix of unknown function, such as -naxa,asinˇcani-naxa ‘price, measure’ (Quechua
ˇcani) and intente-naxa- ‘to understand’ (Spanish entender). This suffix also occurs
in non-borrowed roots as a verbaliser (e.g. in latais-naxa- ‘to be absent’ from latais
‘absent’). The existence of suffixes such as -naxa and -sti (e.g. in p
h
oqo-sti ‘white’,
cf. p
h
oqo ‘ripe’, ‘full’) suggests that not all pre-Quechuan morphology has been
replaced.
The formal basis of Callahuaya morphology takes its origin in the variety of Quechua
spoken in the provinces of Bautista Saavedra and Mu˜necas. It is defined as Northern
Bolivian Quechua in Stark (1985b) and is more similar to Cuzco and Puno Quechua than
to mainstream Bolivian Quechua. A conservative feature of this dialect is that it pre-
serves syllable-final stops and affricates which have become fricatives in the surrounding
358 3 The Inca Sphere
dialects. At least one verbal suffix attested in Callahuaya (-ra- ‘one by one’, cf. Stark
1972b: 211) is originally an Aymara suffix, which is also found in Puno Quechua, a
Quechua variety with a powerful Aymara substratum (cf. Adelaar 1987).
The data presented by the different authors, in particular Oblitas Poblete (1968) and
Girault (1989), are far from identical. The discrepancies in question may reflect separate
local traditions. Girault’s material is of particular interest because it exhibits a number of
innovations in the pronominal and possessive personal reference systems (cf. Muysken
1997b). One of these innovations concerns a tendency to switch the second- and third-
person markers. The other innovation consists in the presence of a separate class of
possessive modifiers, which are reminiscent in function, though not in form, of the
Puquina possessive modifiers.
According to all sources, the second-person pronoun in Callahuaya is ˇcu:, a form which
coincides with the third-person pronoun chu in Puquina, suggesting that it replaced the
original second-person pronoun pi of that language. In Girault’s data the Callahuaya
third-person pronoun is ˇcuynin, reflecting a combination of the stem ˇcu: ∼ ˇcuy and the
Quechua third-person possessive ending -(ni)n.For the same purpose, Oblitas’s examples
consistently feature a pronoun or demonstrative stem hiru.
152
It is likely that this shift
in function of the Puquina third-person pronoun may have triggered the confusion
between second- and third-person endings attested in Girault’s materials.
Apart from a few minor differences, the endings of the Callahuaya verbal paradigm
are consistent with those of the Quechua verbal paradigm. Muysken (1997b) points at
two Callahuaya sample phrases in Girault (1989: 149) where an original second-person
ending -nki occurs with a third-person subject. Both, however, contain the form aˇcapunki
(presumably from aˇca- ‘to be’). Additional data are needed in order to establish whether
this is a regular verb form, or a form with a special (non-verbal?) status.
A Callahuaya genitive construction involving two nouns is consistent with the
Quechua model, which combines head and dependent marking, except that the third-
person ending of a possessed substantive has a special allomorph -an occurring after
consonants, which is not attested in Quechua (where it is -nin). The genitive case marker
is either -pax or -x.
153
(325) Petruˇcu-(pa)x atasi-n
Pedro-G woman-3P
‘Pedro’s wife’
(Girault 1989: 147)
152
In addition to hiru,Oblitas Poblete also mentions the forms ˇcuynin and piˇci. The latter may
reflect the Puquina second-person marker pi,inwhich case a full swap would have occurred.
153
It is not clear whether Callahuaya makes a distinction between syllable-final x (velar) and
x
.
(uvular), as does Cuzco Quechua. Therefore, we write x everywhere.
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 359
Table 3.23 Possessed nouns in Callahuaya (following Girault
1989: 145)
1st person 2nd person 3rd person
Plain Emphatic Plain Emphatic Plain Emphatic
usi: usi:ku usin usinku usiki usikiˇci
ka:ni ka:niku ka:nin ka:ninku ka:ki ka:kiˇci
l
y
oqeni l
y
oqeniku l
y
oqenin l
y
oqeninku l
y
oqenki l
y
oqenkiˇci
(326) Pawluˇcu-(pa)x l
y
oqen-an
Pablo-G bull-3P
‘Pablo’s bull’
(Girault 1989: 147)
When a noun is marked for person of possessor without being part of a genitive
construction, or when it is part of a genitive construction in which the modifying element
is a free pronoun, both the head and the modifier take special endings. These endings
have their origin in different varieties of Quechua, but the corresponding functions do
not coincide. The result is a complete split between pronominal and nominal possessive
constructions.
The possessive endings of Callahuaya denote person, not number. A first-person is
indicated by vowel length, by -ni or by -i;asecond-person by -n,by-nin or by -in;a
third-person by -ki. The endings -i and -in are found after stems ending in -n,whereas
-ni and -nin are found after any other stem ending in a consonant or a long vowel. Vowel
lengthening and -n are reserved for stems that end in a short vowel. The elements -ku and
-ˇci, corresponding to the Quechua pluralisers -ku and -ˇcik/-ˇcis, respectively, can be added
to the person markers but only for emphasis. They no longer indicate plural. The suffix
-ku accompanies first- and second-person markers, whereas -ˇci is found with third-person
markers. The resistance against plural marking is reminiscent of the situation in Puquina,
which lacks a number distinction in possessives (except for first-person). Table 3.23
contains examples of personal reference marking with the nouns usi ‘house’, ka: ‘tooth’
and l
y
oqen ‘bull’.
The reversal of second- and third-person markers in Callahuaya must be relatively
recent, because it is not found in the Lord’s Prayer presented in Girault, nor in the version
reproduced by Oblitas Poblete (1968: 33):
(327) mini:-ki wak’a-naxa-sqa aˇca-ˇcun
name-2P believe-LS-SN be-3S.IM
‘Thy Name be hallowed!’
(Girault 1989: 19)
360 3 The Inca Sphere
Table 3.24 Personal and possessive pronouns in Callahuaya (following
Girault 1989: 144–5)
Possessive pronouns Possessive pronouns
Personal pronouns Set 1 Set 2
1 pers. sing. nisi nisip nisixta
plur. nisinˇcex nisinˇcix
2 pers. sing. ˇcu: ˇcunikix ˇcu:xta
plur. ˇcu:kunas ˇcu:kunaxta
3 pers. sing. ˇcuynin ˇcuninku ˇcuninkux
plur. ˇcuyninkunas ˇcuninkux
The possessive pronouns in Callahuaya are made up of non-Quechuan pronominal
stems and Quechua endings. The exact composition of these forms is not regular and
either reflects different stages in the development of Quechua, or a different dialectal
origin. There are two sets, a prenominal set reminiscent of the Puquina possessive
modifiers, and an independent set, which is not confined to the prenominal position
(compare English ‘my’ versus ‘mine’). Only the second set allows a number distinction.
Table 3.24 contains an overview of the Callahuaya personal pronouns and the two sets
of possessive pronouns.
The first-person pronoun nisi reflects Puquina ni ‘I’. It contains an element -si also
attested in other Callahuaya words such as atasi ‘woman’ (Puquina atago). Possibly, -si
reflects the ergative case marker -s of Puquina. The possessive sets contain two origi-
nal genitive endings corresponding to different stages in the development of Quechua,
namely -p and -x. The concatenation of a genitive and an accusative marker (-ta)is
found in Quechua but has a very different syntactic function. It brings into evidence the
amount of restructuring that has occurred in Callahuaya. Not all the forms represented
in table 3.24 are attested in Oblitas Poblete (1968). Oblitas gives nisinˇcis instead of both
nisinˇcex and nisinˇcix.
154
Furthermore, the Quechua plural marker -kuna is not followed
by the Spanish plural marker -s,asisthe case in Girault’s data.
Among other points in which Callahuaya differs from Quechua, we may mention the
fact that the accusative case marker -ta is often omitted in direct objects (especially
in Girault’s data). Negation is indicated by means of a negative marker u:, which has
no formal counterpart in Puquina. Syntactically, u: behaves like the Quechua negative
particle mana.
154
The vowel contrast represented in nisinˇcex and nisinˇcix may possibly be related to different
articulations of the following fricative (as in Cuzco Quechua). Since we have no specific
information on this point, we follow Girault’s orthography.
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 361
Table 3.25 Callahuaya consonant inventory (based on Stark 1972b)
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular
Plain stops/affricates p t ˇckq
Aspirated stops/affricates p
h
t
h
ˇc
h
k
h
q
h
Glottalised stops/affricates p’ t’ ˇc’ k’ q’
Fricatives/sibilants s ˇsh[x]
Nasals m n n
y
Vibrant r
Laterals l l
y
Glides w y
(328) tutas u: tutas
cold not cold
‘cold’ ‘of moderate temperature’
(Oblitas Poblete 1968: 82, 139)
(329) hikutawan u:-ˇcu hata-wax hata-y-ni:-ta
155
also not-IR love-2S.PO love-IF-1P-AC
‘So you could not care for my affection any
more?’
(Oblitas Poblete 1968: 43)
An overview of the Callahuaya phonemes can be found in Stark (1972b). Oblitas
Poblete (1968) presents a traditional but relatively precise inventory. The transcription
in Girault (1989) is inaccurate, but his publication contains a recorded tape which gives
a good impression of the pronunciation of Callahuaya. All authors agree that Callahuaya
has a five vowel system with distinctive vowel length (a, e, i, o, u; a:, e:, i:, o:, u:). The
consonant inventory, which is very similar to that of Bolivian and Cuzco Quechua, is
represented in table 3.25.
As a commentary to the consonant inventory in table 3.25, one may observe that a
palatal sibilant ˇs,inopposition to s,isnot convincingly attested. Furthermore, Girault’s
data point at the existence of a glottal stop that occurs between same vowels, for instance,
in ji’i [hiʔi] ‘llama’. In this respect Callahuaya would agree with Puquina, although the
items in which the alleged glottal stop occurs are usually not the same. There is no precise
information about a possible lowering effect of uvular consonants on high vowels, as
found in Quechua and Aymara, but several examples suggest that such an effect may
play a role.
As a further illustration of the lexical relationship between Puquina and Callahuaya
the principal numerals in both languages are given below. Note that the Callahuaya words
155
The first-person marker -ni: corresponds to -ni in Girault (1989).
362 3 The Inca Sphere
for the numbers five and higher are very different from their Puquina counterparts. The
etymology of these Callahuaya forms is not known.
Puquina: hucsto (‘one’), so (‘two’), cap(p)a (‘three’), sper (‘four’), tacpa (‘five’),
chichu (‘six’), stu (‘seven’), quinas (‘eight’), checa (‘nine’), scata (‘ten’)
Callahuaya: uksi ∼ uxsi (‘one’), su: ∼ so: (‘two’), kapi (‘three’), pil
y
(‘four’), ˇcisma
(‘five’), taxwa (‘six’), qaxsi (‘seven’), wasa (‘eight’), nuki (‘nine’), q
h
oˇca
∼ x
.
oˇca (‘ten’), tikun (‘one hundred’).
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages
The speakers of the Uru–Chipaya language family are often believed to belong to one
of the oldest population layers of the Bolivian and Peruvian altiplano.Traditionally,
they have been associated with an aquatic habitat and a lifestyle of fishing and hunting
characteristically found along the shores and on the islands of the lakes Titicaca and
Poop´o, as well as along the Desaguadero river, which connects the two lakes (cf. Wachtel
1978). However, lifestyle and language did not necessarily go together. About 1600,
Uruquilla was the name used for the Uru–Chipaya languages, although it may have
covered some other language groups as well. Uruquilla-speaking groups were found
scattered over the western part of the Bolivian altiplano from Lake Titicaca to the area
of L´ıpez in the south of the department of Potos´ı (cf. Bouysse-Cassagne 1975). Not all
Uruquilla speakers mentioned in the colonial sources shared the typical aquatic lifestyle.
In Zepita (province of Chucuito, Puno, Peru) a community of relatively prosperous
farmers spoke Uruquilla but did not differ in their ways from their Aymara-speaking
neighbours (Torero 1987). The term Uro (Uru)was used mainly for referring to groups
who remained attached to the aquatic way of life, thus resisting their incorporation into
the Spanish system of domination. One such group were the Ochosuma,who occupied
the Desaguadero region, and of which the Iru Itu community (see below) may be a
remnant. Another name for the Uru is Kot-su˜n (from qota ‘lake’ and sun
y
i ‘people’).
Today, communities that have preserved or adopted the Uru way of life are mostly
Aymara speakers. This is the case with the Uru who live on reed islands in the Bay of
Puno (Peru) and of the Murato communities located near Lake Poop´o (department of
Oruro, Bolivia). The Murato have preserved some vocabulary originally from an Uru
language, as can be seen in the Murato oral testimonies published in Miranda Mamani
et al. (1992).
The Uru–Chipaya peoples (see also the map in section 3.3) have been the object
of extensive anthropological studies (Vellard 1954, Wachtel 1990). Unfortunately, the
description of their languages has not fared nearly so well. So far, there is no published
grammar, nor a dictionary of any of the Uru–Chipaya languages. The only Uru–Chipaya
language still viable today is Chipaya.Itisspoken by an agricultural community of
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 363
some 1,000 people in the villages of Santa Ana de Chipaya and Ayparavi in the Bolivian
department of Oruro (province of Atahuallpa), including an increasing number of mi-
grants in northern Chile and in the town of Oruro. The Uru language of Iru Itu (also
Iruitu, Irohito)isspoken in a township, which was originally part of a larger commu-
nity called Ancoaqui. It is located in the district (cant´on)ofJes´us de Machaca in the
Bolivian department of La Paz (province of Ingavi). When Vellard studied this com-
munity in the 1940s he witnessed a major crisis due to a lowering of the water level in
the lake, which led to a disintegration of the community. The Uru were forced to leave
their native village for other places, where several married Aymara-speaking partners.
The Uru language was already close to extinction by then. A subsequent rehabilita-
tion of the water level made it possible for most Uru to return, and since then their
community has achieved a remarkable comeback (Ticona and Alb´o 1997). Today, one
fluent speaker remains, as well as a number of semi-speakers. Nevertheless, there is a
wish to revitalise the language, which is now preferably referred to as Uchumataqu ‘our
speech’ or ‘the speech of the Desaguadero area (Ochosuma)’. At the time of writing
(2002) Muysken was conducting descriptive research on the language in response to the
educational aspirations of the community. A third Uru language was formerly spoken
in the village of Ch’imu (or Ts’imu), a township of Ichu, situated on the shore of Lake
Titicaca a few kilometres east of Puno. This variety was discovered and studied in 1929
by the German Americanist Lehmann. His elaborate notes are kept in the Library of
the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. Some lexical data from these notes have been
published by Torero (1992), who claims that Uru of Ch’imu is the most divergent of the
three Uru–Chipaya languages.
156
Finally, Olson (1964: 313) mentions a fourth variety of
Uru spoken on the Isla del Sol (‘Sun Island’) in Lake Titicaca, presumably in the 1960s.
Some lexical items of this dialect, collected by de Lucca, are reproduced in Olson (1965:
37–8).
Documentation on the Uru–Chipaya languages is relatively recent. Uhle visited the
area in 1894 and left substantial lexical material on both Chipaya and Uchumataqu, as
well as a grammatical sketch of the latter language. They are preserved in manuscript
form in the Library of the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. M´etraux (1935–6, 1936)
provided data on both languages, as did Posnansky (1915, 1934). For Uchumataqu we
may also mention Polo (1901) and an unpublished vocabulary by Lehmann (1929). One
of the richest sources for Uchumataqu is Vellard (1950, 1951, 1967). It consists of short
narratives, and words and phrases, written down with great phonetic detail and provided
with glosses, as well as some grammatical notes. Nevertheless, they are hardly sufficient
to obtain a clear picture of the morphosyntax of the language. The current research by
156
Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino and Peter Masson are planning a publication of these materials, to
be entitled El Uru de la Bah´ıa de Puno (Puno Bay Uru).