Adelaar Willem, Muysken Pieter. The languages of the Andes
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
494 4 Languages of the eastern slopes
possessive prefixes is presented below:
(240) ʔʔo:- 1P (but ʔʔo- before
###
l or t’)
33
ʔʔa- 2P (but ʔʔ- replacing
###
l or t’)
la- 3P (but ∅∅- before
###
l or t’)
(ʔʔi)
###
la:- 4P (also ʔʔi- before
###
l)
Mataco has an elaborate tense system, with a distinction between witnessed and non-
witnessed past. The latter is generally distinguished with
ʔ
- preceding the tense marker
of the non-witnessed past (Claesson 1994: 9):
(241) neʔʔ / ʔʔneʔʔ (non)witnessed immediate past
mheʔʔ / ʔʔmheʔʔ (non)witnessed habitual action in recent past
m´at(hiʔʔ)/ʔʔm´at(hiʔʔ) (non)witnessed past of today and the past night
n´ax(iʔʔ)/ʔʔn´ax(iʔʔ) (non)witnessed past of yesterday and back some
weeks
mh´ax(iʔʔ)/ʔʔmh´ax(iʔʔ) (non)witnessed habitual action from yesterday
back to remote past
(h)teh / pʔʔanteh (non)witnessed remote past for single action
Only in the last case are the forms substantially different. At least some tense markers
can also be attached to nouns.
(242) ha-ʔʔwe:t-teh
34
2P-place-RM
‘your home long ago’
(Claesson 1994: 8)
There are several case markers:
(243) a. ʔʔi la-ʔʔw´e:t-eh
3S.be 3P-place-L
‘(S)he is at home.’
(Claesson 1994: 4)
b. ʔʔi-wo ʔʔahu:cax-aʔʔ
3S-do caracara-AC
‘(S)he dances the caracara (a traditional dance).’
(Claesson 1994: 4)
Chulup´ı–Ashlushlay or Nivacl´eisspoken in Paraguay (departments of Boquer´on
and Presidente Hayes) and Argentina (Salta Province). A detailed dictionary of this
language with sentence examples is available (Seelwische 1980). Chorote is also spoken
33
The voiceless lateral and the glottalised alveolar stop are analysed as sequences lh, t
ʔ
in Claesson
(1994). Stress is not indicated on word-final syllables.
34
Notice that the possessive prefix
ʔ
a- is ha- before a preglottalised consonant.
4.14 The languages of the Chaco region 495
Table 4.12 Reconstructed consonant system of Proto-Matacoan (based on Viegas
Barros 2002)
Labial(ised) Dental Alveolar Palatal(ised) Velar Uvular
Plain stops ∗p ∗t ∗c ∗k
y
∗k ∗q
Glottalised stops ∗p’ ∗t’ ∗c’ ∗k
y
’ ∗k’
Fricatives ∗x
w
∗s ∗x ∗x
.
Lateral fricative ∗
#
l
Lateral ∗l
Nasals ∗m ∗n
Glides ∗w ∗y
in Paraguay (department of Boquer´on) and Argentina (Salta Province). Mak´a, finally, is
only spoken in Paraguay (department of Presidente Hayes), and has been the subject of
excellent studies by Gerzenstein (1994, 1999). This small but vital language is probably
the best-described Chaco language. It is shown to have ergative-like patterning in the verb
morphology and word order (SVO in transitive, VS in intransitive clauses). However,
a detailed reanalysis of the data may well show that typologically it is more Active,
like the Guaicuruan languages. It has a set of mostly locative postpositions. Inalienable
nominal possession is marked by prefixes (V is a harmonising vowel; it occurs before
consonants).
(244) yi-, y(V)- 1P
(V-) 2P
###
l(V)- 3P
in- 4P (1st person inclusive)
(Gerzenstein 1994: 147)
Alienably possessed nouns that refer neither to a body part, nor to a kinship relation, re-
ceive, in addition to the person prefix, an element -q(V)-, for instance, in ye-qe-nenek ‘my
spoon’ (Gerzenstein 1994: 149). Some nouns referring to humans or human attributes are
marked with a suffix -(k)i
ʔ
or -(l)e
ʔ
when feminine, for instance, in puk’al-e
ʔ
‘(female)
blind’, maka-ki
ʔ
‘Mak´awoman’ (Gerzenstein 1994: 152).
Najlis (1984) is a reconstruction of Proto-Matacoan phonology, excluding Mak´a.
The data in Gerzenstein (1978, 1979, 1983) show that the two varieties of Chorote have
phonemes very much like these of Mak´a. However, the phonological analysis of Claesson
(1994) gives a rather different picture. He analyses the series of glottalised and aspirated
stops and of pre-aspirated sonorants reconstructed by Najlis as consonantal sequences.
In addition, he assumes only six vowels, where Najlis reconstructs eight. Viegas Barros
(2002) reanalyses all the data available and arrives at a new reconstruction of the Proto-
Matacoan consonant inventory, presented in table 4.12.
496 4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Table 4.13 Phoneme inventory of Ayoreo (based on Briggs 1973)
∗
Labial Dental Palatal Velar Glottal
Voiceless stops p t ˇckʔ
Voiced stops b d g
Fricatives s h
Vibrant r
Nasals m n n
y
ŋ
Voiceless nasals
h
m
h
n
h
n
y
Glides w y
Oral Nasal
Front Centre Back Front Centre Back
High i u ˜ı˜u
Mid e o ˜e˜o
Low a ˜a
∗
Vowel length and stress are contrastive.
Zamucoan includes Zamuco or Ayoreo and the language Chamacoco, spoken in
Paraguay. The majority of the Ayoreo or Ayor´eode (ayor´e means ‘person’) live in Bo-
livia in the department of Santa Cruz, still preserving their nomadic way of life to some
extent. There are also Ayoreo in Paraguay. The language with the same name is seriously
endangered. Fischermann (1988: 111) notes that there is surprisingly little dialect varia-
tion, even if the Ayoreo live rather dispersed. In some southern varieties, intervocalic r is
not pronounced. Thus Ayoreo is pronounced as [ayoweo], and the word parakar˜a ‘rattle’
as [pa:ka:]. The manuscript Zamuco grammar by Ignace Chom´e (written between 1738
and 1745) has been published by Lussagnet (1958). In addition, Lussagnet (1961–2) has
made available vocabulary items from older sources in different Zamucoan languages.
Zolezzi and Riester (1985) present a number of Ayoreo texts.
Although little systematic study has been carried out, Ayoreo may be assumed to have
the phoneme system given in table 4.13, combining information from different sources.
Clearly more work is needed here urgently. There is general agreement that there is a
five-vowel system, with an oral and a nasal series. The words given in the texts by Briggs
suggest vowel harmony: words generally (though not quite always) contain vowels from
only one of the series. There can be several vowels in a row, but consonant clusters are
not possible.
From Briggs (1973: 156), some insight into the structural properties of Ayoreo can be
gained. There is a masculine/feminine distinction in nouns, as well as a singular/plural
distinction. Adjectives agree in gender and number with the nouns they modify. There
is some derivational nominal morphology, and nouns can be marked for possession. In
4.14 The languages of the Chaco region 497
the verbal system there are derivational affixes, person prefixes, and tense and aspect
particles.
A preliminary analysis of the following narrative fragment presented by Briggs (1973:
157) gives an indication of some of the features of the language:
(245) ∅∅-uh´e:ʔʔ t´ıgre ˜eŋŋ˜ahe˜a:ˇc
´
˜er˜akeʔʔ yu ih´ıʔʔ t´a y-ibatig´ai.
1S.SG-kill jaguar and EC jump 1.SG.PU L there 1P.SG-honey.
hunting.trip
‘I was trying to kill a jaguar, and he jumped me while I was on the
honey-hunting trip.
i-ˇcag ´u ŋŋ˜ar˜an
´
˜ım˜uˇc-˜ı
h
n
´
˜ı:m ˜eʔʔ y-˜asor´et˜eŋŋ˜a ∅∅-˜a
h
n˜aʔʔ
1S.SG-lance come.DS but 3S.SG-take.out 1P.SG-lance and 1S.SG-follow
I lanced him as he came, but he took away my lance and I followed him
˜eŋŋ˜a hek i:si-hiʔʔ t
´
˜o:n˜ın
y
˜ekeʔʔ.
and EC 1S.SG.find-DR long.ways.away.
and found him a long way away.
∅∅-ah´oy-˜asor´e tah´aʔʔ m˜u, bag´e t-ua:t´ıd´a:y ka:si:k´aiteʔʔ
1S.SG-put.down.upon 1P.SG-lance AL but Bagu´e FE.DC father late
Iwent to kill him with my lance but Bagu´e’s late father
ˇc´ı:seʔʔ yu ih´ıʔʔ ˜eŋŋ˜aˇc-uh´e:ʔʔ ih´ıʔʔ y-˜ı
h
m
´
˜a:˜ın˜ıeʔʔ.
3S.SG-find 1.SG.PU L and 3S.SG-kill L 1P.SG-hand
came right in and killed him under my nose.
or´e:ʔʔ ˇc-˜ı
h
n
´
˜okeʔʔ ah´aʔʔ deg´ui.
3.PL 3S-carry.on.shoulders AL camp
They carried him back to camp.’
The first-person-singular prefix i-/y-/
- can be used both as a possessive and as a subject
marker with verbs (and may well be related to the pronoun yu ‘first person singular’). It is
not clear that this holds for all persons. The language has relational elements (prepositions
or postpositions), like ih´ı
ʔ
‘locative’ and ah´a
ʔ
‘directional’. Verbs precede the direct
object (SVO), and in the text given, the possessor precedes the possessed.
Lengua–Mascoy has been described as an isolate with several dialects, or as a small
language family, Mascoyan (Campbell 1997). Very little systematic linguistic research
has been carried out on this language. A phonological analysis remains to be done, but
it is clear that there is extensive vowel harmony.
Suˇsnik (1977) is a very interesting ethnolinguistically oriented description of Lengua–
Mascoy vocabulary, grammar and culture. The Lengua–Mascoy verb is marked with a
498 4 Languages of the eastern slopes
rich array of verbal classifiers, marking such notions as direction and location. Pronomi-
nal object marking only involves the first person. Subject marking exists for first person,
second/third person (differentiated for masculine and feminine gender) and first person
plural (Suˇsnik 1977: 97–100). It is not clear whether there is an inclusive/exclusive
distinction. In the unmarked case, the person prefixes are:
(246) k- 1S.SG
ap- 2/3S.SG.MS
n- 2/3S.SG.FE
nn- 1S.PL
k
y
el- 2/3S.PL (Suˇsnik 1977: 98)
The independent pronouns are only in part related to these forms:
(247) koʔʔo
35
1.SG
λλ-y-p
36
2/3.SG.MS
λλ-y 2/3.SG.FE
nŋŋkoʔʔo 1.PL
k
y
el-l ŋŋk
y
-p 2/3.PL.MS
k
y
el-l ŋŋk
y
2/3.PL.FE
Person marking interacts strongly with indicative, future and negation marking on the
verb (Suˇsnik 1977: 99–101). On the noun, person marking is obligatory with body
parts and kin terms (Suˇsnik 1977: 113–14). Gender distinctions pay an important role
in the language. Nominal possessors precede the possessed element:
(248) kla:na ak-ta-lnama
of.the.woman 3P.SG.F-dress
‘the woman’s dress’
(Suˇsnik 1977: 117)
Nominalised verbs also typically receive person marking, and play an important role
in the formation of complex clauses. Two interesting collections of translated religious
texts in Lengua are Nimpasmo nimpaiwa nelmathnangkama and Nimpaiwa ningmi-
naigm`asch`ama (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 1907, 1911).
There have been many population movements in the Chaco during the twentieth
century, both as the result of the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay and of
subsequent socio-economic developments. Stahl (1982: 16) gives a systematic overview
35
Pronunciation suggested in Lowes (1954); Suˇsnik writes k´o´o.
36
We tentatively represent Suˇsnik’s tl as a voiceless lateral affricate (λ
-
); the symbols ¸c and ¸cl are
interpreted as realisations of a voiceless lateral fricative phoneme (l
); Lowes (1954) writes th
and explains it as a dental fricative.
4.15 Quechua influences 499
of the distribution of the languages of the Paraguayan Chaco as spoken around 1900. In
the northwest Chiriguano–Guaran´ıwas spoken, in the northeast the Zamucoan languages
Chamacoco and Ayoreo, and in the centre west Tapiet´e. In the southwest Chulup´ı and
Mak´awere spoken, and in the southeast the Mascoyan languages. In the far south Toba
was spoken, just north of Asunci´on.
There has been much discussion about the possible relatedness of the languages
of the Chaco (see section 1.7). Now that many detailed dictionaries and grammatical
descriptions have become available, this question can be taken up again. In any case, it is
clear that the languages share a number of grammatical and phonological features, as far
as can be ascertained. There is nasalisation and vowel harmony, and consonant clusters
generally are simple. There often is an Active or ergative system with SVO/VS word
order. Person is marked by prefixes, both on the noun and on the verb. In the noun there
often is an alienable/inalienable possession distinction. Once the Zamucoan languages
and Lengua–Mascoy have been better analysed, a full-scale comparative survey can be
undertaken.
4.15 Quechua influences on eastern slopes languages
There are a number of instances of Quechua influence in the Amazon region. Some
scholars seem to feel that the highlands cultures and languages have had relatively little
influence in the lowlands. ‘The extraordinarily limited influence of the Highland on
the Monta˜na is intelligible mainly in terms of unlike environmental conditioning of the
cultures’, Steward (1948: 508) writes. This may be so for cultural patterns in general, but
linguistically the influence of the highlands, in the case of Quechua, is far from trivial.
In addition, later research has pointed to extensive interchanges between monta˜na and
sierra (Raymond 1988).
Tessmann (1930: 623) claims that Chol´on is the only case where a mixed language has
developed from Quechua and the monta˜na languages.
37
This is not true, in our opinion.
It simply shares a number of features with Quechua, as well as with eastern slope
languages, and shares a limited set of particular derivational morphemes with Quechua.
Other languages such as Yanesha
and Shuar have also adopted some Quechua suffixes,
particularly case markers and clausal markers. However, it is difficult to be certain about
the status of Quechua-like suffixes in Chol´on and Shuar because these languages belong
to small language families of which a possible distant genetic relation to Quechua needs
to be studied more. Moreover, there has been no systematic study of the sharing of
grammatical or lexical items between the languages treated in this chapter, and thus the
phenomenon may be much more widespread.
37
‘der einzige Fall, dass sich eine Mischsprache zwischen Ketschua und Waldlandsprachen
gebildet hat’.
500 4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Quechua influence takes several forms. First, a number of varieties of Quechua are
spoken as native languages in the lowlands. Second, Quechua has functioned and still
functions as a lingua franca in a wide area. Third, many languages have adopted Quechua
vocabulary, for material items, in the numeral system and for certain animals. Examples
include Shuar ˇsaya and Muniche sa
ʔ
a, from Quechua sara ‘maize’, and Shuar kaˇci ‘salt’.
Quechua numerals are found in Conibo, Shipibo, Muniche, Tacana, Urarina,Yameo and
Yanesha
.
A particularly striking case of cultural diffusion is analysed by Nordenski¨old (1922).
The chicken was unknown in pre-Columbian South America, and it was probably in-
troduced into Brazil in 1500. Nordenski¨old claims that the species was traded up the
Amazon and throughout Brazil, among others by the Arawak, before it reached the Incas
from the Gran Chaco, through the Guaran´ı, who named it uru γ
w
asu, big ‘uru’, where
the ‘uru’ was a small native fowl. Nordenski¨old claims the Incas took over the bird and
named it ata-wal
y
pa,where ata is said to be derived from hatun ‘big’ and served as an
augmentative, similar to γ
w
asu. There are numerous speculations as to why the last Inca
received this name, but this is unresolved. The Quechua word atawal
y
pa for ‘chicken’
then spread from the P´aez in Colombia to the Mapuche in central Chile, and into the
jungle as far as the Huitoto. Nordenski¨old argues that this must have happened before
the destruction of the Inca empire. Later a Spanish word would have been chosen. Much
later Quechua influence is unlikely because soon the term for ‘chicken’ became simply
wal
y
pa (in Amazon Quechua walipa), everywhere but in parts of Ecuador. This chapter
ends with a list of words for ‘chicken’ in a number of pre-Andean Amazonian languages
(the words have been taken from various sources).
Quechua-based terms: Huariapano ihtori
Achuar at´aˇs Huitoto ´ataba, at´aba
Aguaruna at´aˇs, at´aˇsu I˜napari tawari
Amahuaca hatap´a Lamista Quechua w´al
y
pa
Amarakaeri wa-tawah Napo Quechua atal´ıpa, at´al
y
a
Apolista atalpa Nocam´an at´apa
Campa atawal´ıpa Nomatsiguenga ti´ape
Campa Ash´aninca atawa, tawalpa,Panobo ixtori
(ta)waripa, tawarina Piro xat
y
awripa
Canelo Quechua at´al
y
a Quijos Quechua at´alipa, at´al
y
pa
Capanahua atapa Setebo it´odi
Cashibo ´ataba, ´atapa, attapa-awi, ´at´oripa Shipibo/Conibo ´atapa, atapa
Chamikuro ataw´ali Shuar at´aˇs(i)
Chasutino Quechua w´ad
y
pa Ticuna ´ota
Chayahuita at(o)ad´ı, at(o)ar´ı, ataˇs Urarina atawar´ı, atawari
Chol´on at´el
y
wa, atel
y
w´a Yagua to´ari, tawal
y
i, tawariy, tuwariy
Cocama ataw´ali, atawari Yanesha
atol
y
op, at´olup
Hibito ud
ˇz
pa Yuracar´e talipa
Huambisa ataˇs, ˇsiam Z´aparo at´awali
4.15 Quechua influences 501
Other:
Andoa karar´a, kakar´a Muniche kaka, ˇcaˇcan
y
ʔ
Arabela kakaray´a Muinane kat´awua, adaba
Bora k
h
´arak
h
a Omurana m´ata
Candoshi kt´aˇso, kat´aˇsu Secoya/Pioje k´uda, kur´a
Chiquitano kuras
ˇs
.
, (o)kurubas
ˇs
.
Sensi oˇcici
Coto/Orej´on kur´a Tekiraka: Abishira a˜a, tawaruy´a
Iquito kakarra, kakar´a Tekiraka: Vacacocha aya´u
Jebero wa
ʔ
γ ´ant
k Yameo sek
ə
n, seik´en
5
The Araucanian Sphere
The term ‘Araucanian Sphere’ has been chosen to cover the central part of what is
today the Republic of Chile, extending from the Aconcagua river valley to the island
archipelago of Chilo´e. At the arrival of the European invaders this area was predomi-
nantly inhabited by a single ethnolinguistic group: the Araucanians. This powerful nation
became partly incorporated within the colonial society, but also included an important
sector which succeeded in preserving its independence until 1882.
In this chapter we furthermore give attention to the central-western part of Argentina,
comprising the hilly region known as the Sierra de C´ordoba and the Andean foothills
region known as Cuyo (including parts of the provinces of Mendoza, San Juan and
San Luis). Like the Araucanians, the original inhabitants of central-western Argentina
were agriculturalists. They became involved in the process of colonisation right from
the beginning, and lost their identity and their languages at an early stage (Mart´ınez
Sarasola 1992: 58–63). Of the various native languages that were once spoken in central-
western Argentina only the Huarpean languages, Allentiac and Millcayac,have been
documented. They constitute a family of closely related languages. Allentiac was spoken
in the southern part of San Juan and in northern San Luis, whereas Millcayac extended
southward from the culturally important wetlands of Guanacache to the R´ıo Diamante,
covering most of Mendoza. The native languages of the province of C´ordoba were the
languages of the Comechingones (in the sierras of western C´ordoba) and the Sanavirones
(in the northern sierra of C´ordoba and its eastern lowlands, including the banks of
the lake called Mar Chiquita). These languages are virtually undocumented. Although
Loukotka (1968) includes the Comeching´on language (with its presumed dialects Henia
and Camiare) within the Huarpean family, the evidence consists of no more than a
couple of words. In 1594 Barzana (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 79) reported that
more than eight or nine different languages were spoken in the Sierra de C´ordoba,
which indicates that the Comeching´on language probably did not constitute a unity.
The Sanavir´on language is classified as a linguistic isolate in Loukotka (1968), but the
amount of evidence is so small that a possible genetic relationship could not be detected,
even when it existed.
5 The Araucanian Sphere 503
BOLIVIA
PARAGUAY
ARGENTINA
Córdoba
Santiago
Temuco
Valdivia
Chiloé
TEHUELCHE
Buenos Aires
URUGUAY
PERU
CHILE
BRAZIL
ABIPÓN
MILLCAYAC
CHANÁ
QUERANDÍ
GÜNÜNA YAJICH
TEUSHEN
KAINGANG
CHARRÚA
K
A
W
E
S
Q
A
R
C
H
O
N
O
G
U
A
R
A
N
Í
A
R
A
U
C
A
N
I
A
N
P
E
H
U
E
N
C
H
E
A
L
L
E
N
T
I
A
C
D
I
A
G
U
I
T
A
C
O
M
E
C
H
I
N
G
Ó
N
S
A
N
A
V
I
R
Ó
N
Map 11 The Araucanian Sphere: approximate distribution of languages at the time of the Spanish
conquest (sixteenth century)