Adelaar Willem, Muysken Pieter. The languages of the Andes
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
24 1 Introduction
population had entered the New World in times long gone. He assumed that they came
mainly over land, crossing estuaries whenever necessary, in small bands and without
the intention of peopling a new continent. Acosta also indicated the areas where this
could have taken place: in the Arctic regions, where the boundaries of the Old and New
World had not yet been discovered by his contemporaries. It was precisely the diversity
of nations and languages found throughout the Americas that incited Acosta to reject
prevalent theories about shipwrecks and maritime expeditions organised by historically
known peoples. Quite correctly, he predicted that such diversity must have taken a long
time to develop.
In the linguistic domain, Cobo in his Historia del Nuevo Mundo (History of the New
World; 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 remarkably
similar (cf. Mannheim 1985b, 1991). He compared their relationship to that of Spanish
and Italian, both descendants from Latin. By doing so, Cobo underestimated the power
of long-term contacts between two languages sharing a common geographic and cultural
space, a fact of which he was well aware nevertheless. As he posited the genetic unity
of Quechua and Aymara, Cobo also laid the foundations for a debate bound to continue
until the present.
In the eighteenth century, as a result of expanding missionary activity, the awareness
grew that the languages of many South American ethnic groups could be reduced to a
few comprehensive genetic units. Missionaries were well informed about the existence
of 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 groupings
of lasting validity, including Arawakan (still referred to as Maipuran at that time) and
Cariban (Hoff 1968). Another representative of the church, the abbot Herv´as (1784,
1800–5), published a substantial amount of data, collected from, among others, Jesuit
missionaries residing in Europe after their expulsion from the Spanish American domains
in 1767. When pointing out the fact that the Omagua of the Upper Amazon valley
and the Guaran´ıofthe Paraguayan missions spoke closely related languages, despite
geographic separation and different environments, Herv´as showed himself to be aware
of the existence of a Tupi–Guaran´ı linguistic family. Herv´as refers to information from
Gilij, among others, when assigning a number of languages to the Maipuran or Arawakan
family. Among them is the language of the Achagua people of the Colombian llanos
‘plains’, of whose good disposition towards Spanish rule and religion Herv´as speaks
highly. On the other hand, his concept of the existence of a Cariban language family
seemed to be partly inspired by the idea that the Caribs did not easily submit to Spanish
colonial domination. Arawakan nations who resisted colonisation efforts were classified
as Cariban in company with a number of unsubjugated North American tribes. Herv´as
held an interesting concept of language families. If several languages appeared to be
1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 25
related, one of them was assigned the status of lengua matriz (‘mother language’ or
‘principal language’), from which the others, by extension, were derived. This approach
must be viewed in relation to the necessity felt at that time to select a limited number of
languages for the purpose of evangelisation carried out among a much larger number of
linguistic groups.
There is a definite contrast between the amount of information provided by Herv´as
concerning the Andes and the Pacific coast on one hand and the Amazonian lowlands on
the other. The latter is remarkably accurate and full of detail; the former exhibits many
lacunae, particularly in the sphere of the minor languages spoken within the limits of
the former Inca empire. As it appears, the availability of Quechua as a vehicle used
for evangelising purposes made these languages less interesting in the opinion of the
missionaries and information concerning them was not passed on systematically. It may
explain why languages such as Culli, Sechura and Tall´an, spoken until the nineteenth
century in the northern Peruvian coastal plains and highlands, and the Pre-Quechuan
languages of highland Ecuador received almost no attention before they eventually
became extinct.
The nineteenth century marks a renewed interest in native American linguistics and
ethnography. In the southern half of the Andean region, including the adjacent lowlands,
the French traveller and natural scientist d’Orbigny recorded word lists and ethnographic
information on many Indian groups (d’Orbigny 1839). His information on the lowland
Bolivian tribes brought together in the Chiquitos and Moxos missions is particularly
valuable. 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 languages
gained importance during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Brinton published
The American Race (1891), a survey of the native American peoples with a strong
emphasis on linguistic classification. Almost simultaneously, Uhle (1890) proposed the
existence of a Chibchan family, and Middendorf (1890–2) published his monumental
work on the indigenous languages of Peru, in which he also discusses the nature of the
relationship between Quechua and Aymara.
Henceforth, two types of contributions must be distinguished, those aiming at overall
classifications meant to include all documented South American languages, or, at the
least, as many of them as possible, and those aiming at establishing genetic links between
specific languages or language families. Both activities have been going on, often without
much mutual feedback. Proposals concerning genetic relations involving native Andean
languages have been numerous and often contradictory. Here they will be dealt with
very selectively.
We will first enumerate and discuss some of the proposed classifications. Propos-
als concerning individual languages or language families will be treated subsequently.
26 1 Introduction
Classifications are termed conservative if their authors refrain from including genetic
units of which the internal cohesion is still open to doubt. Virtually no classifications are
entirely consistent in this respect. Two classifications stand at the conservative end of
the scale, Loukotka (1968), with 117 independent units for all of South America and the
Caribbean 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 as
well. Conservative classifications do not necessarily imply a rejection of possible com-
prehensive groupings, as their authors explicitly indicate, but they are meant to provide
a list of firmly established ‘shallow’ language families, which can be used in further
rearrangements.
One of the earliest overall classifications of the South American languages, apart from
Brinton’s, is that of Chamberlain (1913). It is a conservative classification containing 84
groups, most of which are represented in the Andes and the eastern foothills. The lower
number of units in relation to, for instance, Loukotka’s classification is due to the fact
that 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 to
108 in the revised edition of 1952). These reductions reflect Rivet’s comparative views
and concern, in particular, the Chibchan language family, to which several groups previ-
ously thought independent had been added. Languages thus classified as Chibchan were
Andaqu´ı, the Barbacoan languages (Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer), the Coconucan
languages (including Guambiano), the Paniquitan languages (including P´aez), Cof´an
and Cuna. Rivet also proposed a subgroup consisting of Barbacoan, Cuna and the Costa
Rican groups Guatuso and Talamancan (the latter comprising all Costa Rican languages
except Guatuso). Further innovations of Rivet’s classification concern the inclusion of
the Tacanan family of northern Bolivia within Arawakan and the inclusion of Uruan
and Puquina (wrongly considered a unit) within that same family. Of these proposals
only the classification of Cuna as a member of the Chibchan family became generally
accepted.
Mason’s contribution to the Handbook of South American Indians (1950) contains
an extensive and very useful discussion of previous classificatory efforts. It also brings
a further reduction of the number of language families. Proposals to establish new
groupings are partly taken from other authors. For the Chibchan family and its possible
expansions (classified as Chibchan, probably Chibchan, or doubtful), Jij´on y Caama˜no
(1940–5) is the main source, although the latter’s proposals are presented with much re-
serve. Followingup suggestions of Rivet, Harrington (1944) and Jij´on y Caama˜no, Mason
groups the Huitotoan, Boran and Zaparoan languages of the Colombian, Ecuadorean
and northern Peruvian lowlands with Tupi–Guaran´ı. Two innovations in Mason’s
1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 27
classification are the terms Kechumaran and Ataguitan, the former referring to a ge-
netic grouping consisting of Quechua and Aymara and the latter bringing together the
Atacame˜no, Diaguita and Humahuaca languages of northern Argentina and northern
Chile. Mason presents the proposed Ataguitan grouping with much hesitation. It has
never gained much support, in particular, because the Diaguita and Humahuaca groups
are virtually undocumented. In contrast, Mason considers Kechumaran ‘yet unproved
but highly probable’ (again referring to Jij´on y Caama˜no’s work). Subsequently, the term
has become widely used in the alternative spelling Quechumaran.Itisremarkable that
Mason explicity excludes the Cauqui or Jaqaru language from this grouping, although
Cauqui was already thought (and is now known) to be closely related to Aymara.
McQuown’s classification (1955) follows Mason’s in several respects, including the
acceptance 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´ı. On the other hand, it is a conservative classification since it allows
for 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 to
enumerate and locate on maps all the native Latin American languages ever mentioned
in literature (1820 for all Latin America). Although doubtlessly useful, McQuown’s lan-
guage list contains many items which are geographic denominations rather than language
names. 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 a
recent 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 that
results from it is merely hypothetical and is also accessory to a spectacular increase in
the number of unclassified languages.
In 1956 Greenberg presents a classification which is distinguished from the previous
ones by its greater sophistication and classificatory explicitness (Greenberg 1960a). In it
few South American languages, however poorly documented, remain unaccounted for.
Although it was published without a factual justification of the groupings proposed, it
became widely known after its appearance in the 1958 edition of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica,inSteward and Faron (1959) and in Current Anthropology (Greenberg
1960b). Much later work on individual South American native languages begins with
a statement locating the language at issue in Greenberg’s classification. It was also
used and given credit in the development of anthropological and archaeological theory
concerning past migrations; see, for instance, Lathrap (1970: 83) and Meggers (1979).
Greenberg’s initial classification was superseded by a rather revolutionary proposal
advanced in his book Language in the Americas (Greenberg 1987). It will be the subject
of a separate section (1.7.4). Since the influence of Greenberg’s initial classification has
been particularly great, the essentials of it regarding the Andean region are reproduced
28 1 Introduction
Table 1.3 Greenberg’s (1956) classification of the languages of the Andes
Yur umangui
- 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´a, Sibundoy), Tuyuneri (=Toyeri,
Harakmbut), Yurucare, Cayuvava.
in table 1.3. For this classification see also Key (1979) with some minor orthographic
variation. 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’s
classification is mapped onto McQuown’s (1955) language list; Simacu (better known
as Itucale or Urarina) is classified as Macro-Tucanoan, not Andean; Atacame˜no (also
known as Kunza) is left out (possibly as a result of a confusion with the extinct Ecuadorian
language called Atacame or Esmeralde˜no); the subdivisions are more detailed and ex-
plicit and their denominations (phylum, stock, family, subfamily) more differentiated.
In the Steward and Faron version, Simacu is not mentioned.
1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 29
Table 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´o; many language
groups of Brazil.
-: Campan (including part of the Arawakan family: Campa,
Machiguenga, Chamicuro, Amuesha, and additionally Chirino),
Arawakan, Guahiboan, Cams´a, Chapacuran, Saliban, Yur´ıan
(including Ticuna and Cof´an), Mobima, Tup´ı, Bororoan (including
Chiquitano), Sec, Lecoan (including Choc´o) and Mochica; several
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˜no and the Brazilian Kapishana and Mashub´ı), Cullian
(including Hibito–Chol´on), Itonama, Cayuvavan (including
Esmeralda), Pano–Tacanan, Sonchon (which includes Moset´en,
Chon and Hongote), Yuracare, Macuan (which includes
Mac´u–Puinave, Het, Charr´uan, Ahuishiri, Zamucoan, Yurumangu´ı,
Canichana, the Brazilian Ot´ı, Ofai´e–Xavante and Catuquina, and the
Venezuelan Macu), Muran (which includes Jivaroan–Cahuapanan,
Boran and Huitotoan, along with the Brazilian Matanau´ı and
Mura–Pirah´a), Puelche (Gennaken), Huarpean, Urarina,
Guaicuruan, Mapuchean (including Matacoan), Guachian
(including Vilela and Guach´ıofMato Grosso, Brazil), Yamanan
(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 with
Greenberg’s in that it seeks to account for as many languages as possible. Swadesh
sees the differentiation of languages as a geographic continuum. He does not define it
exclusively in terms of genetically independent units which are internally structured by
chronologically ordered moments of splitting. Instead of the usual tree model, Swadesh
opts for a model of interconnected networks designed to cover the whole world, not
only the Americas. As in the case of Greenberg’s initial classification, the publication of
factual evidence supporting the classification was announced but remained fragmentary.
Swadesh’s classification is less well known than Greenberg’s. Nevertheless, some of the
surface-level proposals brought forward in it have of late received renewed attention (for
instance, the J´ıvaro–Cahuapana connection and the proposed link between Atacame˜no
and the Brazilian KanoˆeorKapishana; see Kaufman 1990).
Swadesh distinguishes four networks in South America represented in table 1.4.
Tiniguan, Omurano and Nambikwara (Brazil) have a status independent from the
networks. Some languages are left unclassified for lack of data: Puruh´a, Ca˜nari, Aconipa
30 1 Introduction
(Tabancale), Copall´en, Diaguita, Gorgotoqui, Humahuaca, Munichi, Sabela and Mayna
(considered by others to be a group with Omurano). The networks are linked to each
other at different points and also to the North American Macro-Hokan network.
Loukotka (1968) was published posthumously by Wilbert. It had been preceded by
several other classifications, elaborated by the same author, the first of which dates back
to 1935. Loukotka’s work is well known among scholars of South American Indian
languages 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 data
presented are frequently inaccurate, the availability in one single work of some basic
vocabulary of so many different languages constitutes an invitation to browsing and
amateur linguistic comparison.
Loukotka divides the South American and Caribbean languages into languages of
Paleo-American tribes, languages of Tropical Forest tribes and languages of Andean
tribes. This general division, together with its subsequent subdivisions, seems to have a
geographic or an anthropological inspiration, rather than a linguistic one. More essential
are the 117 genetic units (stocks, small stocks and isolated languages) which Loukotka
distinguishes and his endeavour to assign to as many languages as possible a place in the
classificatory framework which he develops. Loukotka’s classification is conservative in
the sense that the proposed groupings basically contain languages of which the genetic
unity 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 unjustified
grouping 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 eastern
Colombia; and (2) the inclusion into the Chibchan family of Yaruro, Esmeralde˜no and a
substantial number of language groups of Ecuador and southern and eastern Colombia
that are not visibly related to it: Betoi, Andaqu´ı, P´aez, Coconuco, Barbacoa and Sibundoy.
The assignment of the Misumalpa family of Central America to the Chibchan stock must
equally be rejected if indisputable internal genetic cohesion is to be the leading criterion
(Constenla Uma˜na 1981). Loukotka’s postulation of two separate isolates in the south
of Chile, Alacaluf and Aksan´as, will be discussed in chapter 6.
In table 1.5, those of Loukotka’s 117 stocks and families relevant to the Andean region
are enumerated. We will distinguish three approximate categories: (I) groups located in
the Andes and along the Pacific coast, (II) groups which are predominantly located in the
eastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina, and (III) groups
which are strongly represented in other areas, but also in the Andes, or in the eastern
lowlands 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 the
Andes or in the eastern lowlands of the Andean countries. Admittedly, some groups are
1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 31
Table 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´amana (1), Alacaluf (2), Aksan´as (3), Patagon or Tshon (4), Timote (95), Jirajara
(96), Choc´o (97), Idabaez (98), Yurimangui (99),* Sechura (101), Catacao (102), Culli
(103), Tabancale (104), Copall´en (105), Chim´u (106), Quechua (107), Aymara (108),
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´ıbaro (62), Sabela (63), Z´aparo (64),
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´an (16),
Bor´oro (27), Tupi (45), Arawak (46), Otomac (47), Guamo (48), Piaroa (50),
Tucuna (53), Chapacura (65), Pano (75), Guat´o (80), Tucano (81), Yuri (85), Mak´u
(86), Araw´a (88), Karaib (89), Chibcha (94).
* The original sources refer to this group as Yurumangu´ı, which is also the name of a river
in the present-day Colombian department Valle del Cauca. The form Yurimangu´ıisfound in
Loukotka (1968) and, as Yurimangi, in Kaufman (1990, 1994).
represented very marginally (Arawa, Guat´o, Kaing´an, Yuri). On the other hand, there
is an additional enumeration of ‘unclassified or unknown languages’, some of which
probably represent separate groups, and, as we saw earlier, the Arawak and Chibcha
groups are subject to further splitting.
Another relatively conservative classification was carried out by Su´arez, and published
in the fifteenth edition (1974) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.Itdistinguishes 82
language groups for all South America. In relation to Loukotka (1968), Su´arez proposes
the groupings listed in table 1.6.
Apart from these groupings, which apparently meet with Su´arez’s approval, he in-
dicates possible additional linkings advanced by others. Of Su´arez’s groupings some
are 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´o and Cariban; Uru–Chipaya and Mayan, see below) or rest upon extensive bor-
rowing (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 South
America) is concerned. According to the author, every group ‘is either obvious on
inspection or has been demonstrated by standard procedures’ (Kaufman 1990: 37).
32 1 Introduction
Table 1.6 Groupings suggested by Su´arez (1974) of language families and isolates
included in Loukotka (1968)
Su´arez (1974) Loukotka (1968)
Alacalufan Aksan´as, Alacaluf
Bora–Huitotoan Bora, Uitoto
Cariban Choc´o, Karaib
Guaycur´u–Charruan Charrua, Guaicuru
Jebero–Jivaroan J´ıbaro, Kahuapana
Lulean Lule, Vilela
Macro-Chibchan Chibcha, Itonama, Warao (Venezuela), Yanoama (Brazil, Venezuela)
Macro-Ge Bor´oro, Kaing´an and a number of Brazilian groups
Macro-Mayan Uro and the Mayan languages (Meso-America)
Macro–Pano-Tacanan Mosetene, Pano, Patagon/Tshon, Tacana, Yuracare
Quechumaran Aymara, Quechua
Suggestions for further grouping are accompanied by the qualifications ‘good’, ‘good?’,
‘promising’, ‘probable’ or ‘maybe’. Considering the greater methodological rigidity
observed by Kaufman, one may wonder why the number of groups in his classification
are not substantially higher. This is mainly because a number of poorly documented
extinct languages and language groups have not been included.
In table 1.7 we have arranged the genetic groups of Kaufman’s classification insofar as
they concern the Andean region by using the same geographic distinctions as observed
in relation to Loukotka’s work above.
As can be deduced from tables 1.5 and 1.7, the extinct languages and language
groups figuring in Loukotka’s classification, but not included in Kaufman’s, are
Idabaez in Colombia, Tabancale and Copall´en in northern Peru and four Argentinian
groups, Diaguit, Humahuaca, Chechehet and Sanaviron because they are undocumented.
Kaufman observes that maybe Gorgotoqui should be excluded as well for the same
reason.
12
The differences between the two classifications reside in the treatment of
the Chibchan family (L94) (Kaufman has six units where Loukotka has one), the
Arawakan family (L46) (Kaufman keeps Guahibo apart from Arawakan), Puquina
(L109) (Kaufman has two units where Loukotka has one), the Je family (K74) (Kaufman
has one unit where Loukotka has two), and Kaw´eskar (K58) (Kaufman has one unit where
Loukotka has two). Otherwise, apart from a minor readjustment concerning the demar-
cation between Arawakan and Har´akmbut/Toyeri (K18, L77), the two classifications are
identical 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´ız (Gonzales de Barc´ıa 1737–8). Unfortunately, no one has been
able to locate this grammar in recent years.
1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 33
Table 1.7 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Kaufman (1990) with
their correlates in Loukotka (1968)*
I Linguistic groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast:
Yurimangi (1, L99 Yurimangui), Tim´otean (2, L95 Timote), Hirah´aran (3, L96 Jirajara),
Chok´o (4, L97 Choc´o), P´aesan (6, L94 Chibcha: Andaqu´ı/ Paez/ Coconuco), Barbak´oan
(7, L94 Chibcha: Barb´acoa), Ezmeralda (27, L94 Chibcha: Esmeralda), Chim´uan (41,
L106 Chim´u), Kulyi (43, L103 Culli), Sechura (44, L101), Katak´aoan (45, L102 Catacao),
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´amana (57, L1), Kaw´eskar (58, L2+L3 Alacaluf, Aksan´as),
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´a (10, L94 Chibcha: Sebondoy), Tin´ıwan (11, L51
Tinigua), Wah´ıvoan (15, L46 Arawak: Guahibo), Har´akmbut (18, L46+L77 Arawak:
Mashco, Toyeri), Tekiraka (21, L60 Auishiri), Kanichana (22, L74 Canichana), Munichi
(26, L56), Kof´an (29, L100 Cof´an), Kandoshi (30, L59 Murato), H´ıvaro (31, L62 J´ıbaro),
Kawap´anan (32, L55 Kahuapana), S´aparoan (33, L64 Z´aparo), Y´awan (34, L54 Yagua),
Omurano (35, L58 Mayna), Sabela (36, L63), Urarina (37, L61 Itucale), B´oran (38, L84
Bora), Wit´otoan (39, L83 Uitoto), Andoke (40, L82 Andoque), Chol´onan (42, L57
Cholona), Leko (46, L112 Leco), Yurakare (52, L78 Yuracare), Tak´anan (54, L76 Tacana),
Moset´en (55, L79 Mosetene), Puelche (60, L5 Gennaken), Lule (65, L116), Vilela (66,
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´ıbchan (8, L94 Chibcha), Otom´akoan (12, L47 Otomac), Wamo (13, L48 Guamo),
Chapak´uran (14, L65 Chapacura), Maip´urean (16, L46 Arawak), Araw´an (17, L88
Arawa), Puin´avean (19, L86 Mak´u), Tuk´anoan (23, L81 Tucano), Tikuna (24, L53
Tucuna), Jur´ı (25, L85 Yuri), Jaruro (28, L94 Chibcha: Yaruro), P´anoan (53, L75 Pano),
Mat´akoan (62, L10 Mataco), Waikur´uan (63, L8 Guaicuru), Charr´uan (64, L15 Charrua),
Mask´oian (67, L11 Lengua), Sam´ukoan (68, L12 Zamuco), Bor´oroan (71, L27 Bor´oro), Je
(74, L16+L24, Kaing´an, Ge), Guat´o (82, L80), Tup´ıan (109, L45 Tupi), K´ariban (110,
L89 Karaib), S´alivan (114, L50 Piaroa).
* 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 (the
spelling is Kaufman’s): P´aesan (K6) and Barbak´oan (K7); Chibchan (K8) and Misumalpa
(a Central American group); Wamo (K13) and Chapak´uran (K14); Tikuna (K24) and
Jur´ı (K25); Ezmeralda (K27) and Jaruro (K28); H´ıvaro (K31) and Kawap´anan (K32);
S´aparoan (K33) and Y´awan (K34); B´oran (K38), Wit´otoan (K39) and Andoke (K40);
Sechura (K44) and Katak´aoan (K45); Kechua (K47) and Haki (K48); Pukina (K50) and
Kolyawaya (K51); P´anoan (K53) and Tak´anan (K54); Moset´en (K55) and Chon (K56);