CC BY-NC-ND
23
Albert Davletshin Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow)
Proto-Uto-Aztecans on their way to the Proto-Aztecan homeland: linguistic evidence*
The Uto-Aztecan language family is one of the largest genetically related groups of the Americas, whose speakers inhabited a vast territory, extending from the state of Oregon to Panama. The paper is based on the observation that six Proto-Uto-Aztecan animal names received the augment *-yo: in Proto-Aztecan. This augment can be interpreted as a suffix of abstract possession which derives abstract nouns and indicates possession of the object or quality. Thus, Proto-Aztecan 'coyote' *koyo:- literaly means 'one of the coyote's, somewhat like the coyote', 'owl' *takolo:~ 'one of the owl's, somewhat like the owl', etc. This change in meaning implies that the Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland must have been ecologically different from the place to which speakers of Proto-Aztecan later migrated.
Keywords: Uto-Aztecan languages, Aztecan languages, Mesoamerican linguistics, prehistoric migrations, original homeland reconstruction.
The Uto-Aztecan language family is one of the largest genetically related language groups of the Americas (Campbell 1997: 133-137). According to conservative estimates, it consists of over 30 individual languages, whose speakers inhabited the vast territory extending from the state of Oregon to Panama (Fig. 1). The distance as the crow flies between the two places is over 5500 km. One glottochronological estimate places the break-up of Proto-Uto-Aztecan at around 5,000 years ago (48 minimum centuries of divergence according to Terrence Kaufman 1976: 73; see also Miller 1984), while the estimate of Holman, Brown et al. (2011) is 4018 B.P.
The Uto-Aztecan family is one of the relatively well documented and studied Native American linguistic groups. Northern members of the family have always been the centre of attention for American linguists. One of its southernmost members is Classical Nahuatl, which was the language spoken by the Aztecs; it is documented through a multitude of written sources transcribed by means of a specially adapted Latin alphabet and in the indigenous logosyllabic writing system (see for example, Launey 1979 and Lacadena 2008). Classical Nahuatl is remarkable for a Native American language in that it has been documented in several dictionaries and grammatical descriptions dating to the 16th and 17th centuries. One of them (Carochi 1645) even consistently marks vowel length and the glottal stop. The validity of the family was undisputedly proved by Edward Sapir (1913-1919), who established regular phonetic correspondences between Southern Paiute and Classical Nahuatl. The subgrouping of Uto-Aztecan, however, continues to be controversial in some respects (Hill 2012). Nine branches at the lower level are recognized (Numic, Californian, Hopi, Tepiman, Cahitan, Opata-Eudeve, Tarahumara-Guarijio, Tubar, Cora-Huichol and Aztecan), but there is no agreement concerning higher-level grouping. Thus, the family has a "rake"-like structure (Fig. 2). Many scholars (Heath 1977: 27; Langacker 1977: 5; Kaufman 1981) have suggested a
* I would like to thank Jane Hill, Karen Dakin and Soren Wichmann, who have helped a lot with the discussion of different issues related to Uto-Aztecan languages, and also for providing hard-to-access materials.
Journal of Language Relationship • Вопросы языкового родства • 8 (2012) • Pp. 75 — 92 • © Davletshin A., 2012
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of Uto-Aztecan languages. Drawing by the author after Campbell 1991: 358, Map 6.
Figure 2. Classification of Uto-Aztecan languages.
Figure 3. Classification of Aztecan languages.
primary split between Northern Uto-Aztecan (Numic, Californian, Hopi) and Southern Uto-Aztecan (Tepiman, Cahitan, Opata-Eudeve, Tarahumara-Guarijio, Tubar, Cora-Huichol and Aztecan). It should be emphasized that Northern Uto-Aztecan exhibits phonological and morphological innovations (Manaster Ramer 1992; Heath 1977, 1978), while Southern Uto-Aztecan exhibits only a slightly closer lexical unity. Cora-Huichol and Aztecan appear to be more closely related to each other than to other members of the family (Campbell and Langacker 1978; see more in Hill 2012). The Aztecan branch consists of several closely related speech variants, where some may be called dialects and others languages (Fig. 3); I shall not attempt to make this distinction here. They constitute the southern periphery of the Uto-Aztecan world and belong to the Mesoamerican linguistic area (Campbell, Kaufman and Smith-Stark 1986). Today the distance separating the northernmost speakers of Aztecan languages (the state Du-rango of Mexico) and the southernmost ones (El Salvador) is about 2000 km.
Based on the analysis of plant and animal names, Catherine Fowler (1972, 1983) suggested that the Proto-Numic homeland was located in southern California, near Death Valley, while the Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland was somewhere in Arizona and Northern Mexico. From here, Uto-Aztecan speakers would have spread as far north as Oregon (Northern Paiute), east to the Great Plains (Comanche), and south as far as Panama (Aztecan languages). Wick Miller (1983: 123) suggested that the homeland of the proposed Sonoran grouping (essentially Southern Uto-Aztecan) was in the foothills region between the Mayo and the Sinaloa Rivers. This localization of the Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland is accepted by many (see for example, Campbell 1997: 137). A proposal of a location much further south for the territory of Proto-Uto-Aztecan has been published by Jane H. Hill (2001, 2003; see also Bellwood 1997). She reconstructs maize-related vocabulary in Proto-Uto-Aztecan and assumes that speakers of Proto-Uto-Aztecan were maize cultivators and originated in Mesoamerica, from whence they quickly spread northward, bringing agriculture with them. According to the suggested scenario, it is agriculture that stimulated the rapid geographic diffusion of Uto-Aztecan. This hypothesis, and, in particular, agricultural etymons reconstructed for Proto-Uto-Aztecan by Jane H. Hill, have been severely criticized (Campbell 2003; Kaufmann and Justeson 2009). Recently, Brian Stubbs (n.d.) has expressed the opinion that greater linguistic diversity in the southern Uto-Aztecan areas suggests that these areas represent a likely alternative location for the Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland. Finally, Wichmann, Müller et al. (2010) identify the center of diversity, and consequently, a probable location of the Uto-Aztecan homeland, with the region surrounding the current location of the Yaqui language, in Sonora, Mexico. Basing their conclusions on ethnohistorical sources and on an apparent lack of early Aztecan loans in Mesoameri-can languages, many scholars (Justeson, Norman et al. 1985: 24-26; Campbell 1988: Chapter 12) believe Aztecan languages and dialects to be late intruders in the area. For example, Terrence Kaufman (2001) postulates the arrival of the Aztecan speakers into Central Mexico at c. 500 AD and their subsequent expansion to the Gulf coast, Chiapas, Guatemala and El Salvador at c. 800 AD.
These different proposals for the Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland, based on different kinds of evidence, are difficult to evaluate. Results obtained by the traditional "Wörter und Sachen" method applied by Catherine Fowler are difficult to evaluate because Uto-Aztecan speakers of today enjoy a vast range of ecological environments; this situation implies that on their way from their Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland Uto-Aztecans would have lost the knowledge of many aspects of the physical environment and, consequently, would have forgotten the corresponding words. A similar reasoning makes it problematic to reconstruct argricultural etymons for Proto-Uto-Aztecan: many Uto-Aztecan groups were either hunter-gatherers in historical times or became agriculturists in relatively recent times. In the Early Colonial Period
epidemics decimated the indigenous population and many ethnic groups and languages became extinct, leaving no trace behind them (for possible extinct Uto-Aztecan languages see Miller 1983; Campbell 1997: 133-135). This makes estimates based on the geographic distribution of Uto-Aztecan languages and their mutual diversity problematic.
The Aztecs, as their traditions say, may have originated from barbarians who came from the North, but the myth of a "Northern Homeland" from whence "the true kings" came, while it played a very important role in the politics of Late Post-Classic Mesoamerica, can hardly be considered good evidence. Early Aztecan loans in Mesoamerican languages may have been blurred by a massive intrusion of Aztec loans in Late Post-Classic times, when Classical Nahuatl was the language of the Aztec Empire and a lingua franca of Mesoamerica, as well as in Early Colonial times, when, along with Spanish, it was recognized as one of the two official languages of New Spain. At the time of the arrival of the Spaniards, speakers of Aztecan languages were found over a huge territory. Their internal diversity corresponds to at least 15 centuries according to the traditional glottochronological method of Morris Swadesh (Kaufman 1976: 73; see also Garcia de Leon 1976: 22-50, Luckenbach and Levy 1980), a date which is similar to the 1509 B.P. dating of Holman, Brown et al. (2011) for Aztecan minus Pochutec. According to Sergei Starostin's modification of the method (see for example Starostin 2000), the breakup occurred around 25 centuries ago, if Pochutec is included, and around 18 centuries ago, if it is excluded.
In the Appendix A, I enclose 100-wordlists for the following Aztecan languages: Classical Nahuatl (Central Mexico), Jalupa Nawat (Tabasco), Mecayapan Nawat (Veracruz), North Puebla Nahuatl (Puebla), Pipil (El Savador), Pochutec (Oaxaca), and Tetelcingo Nahuatl (Morelos). I have chosen the most divergent and representative varieties of Aztecan languages according to the mentioned studies. It should be noted that the available data on the extinct Pochutec language (Boas 1917) are scarce and rather poor in quality, but the language has nevertheless been taken into consideration as a probable representative of an independent branch in the Aztecan subgroup. I have excluded No. 26 'fat (n.)' and No. 64 'person (n.)' from the calculations, since they mostly happen to be Colonial Spanish loans in the area. I have also excluded No. 48 'liver (n.)' and replaced No. 93 'warm (adj.)' with 'hot', since the corresponding lexical entries are underrepresented in dictionaries on modern languages. The 100-wordlist items were produced applying strict semantic control (see Kassian, Starostin et al. 2010).
The vast territory inhabited by speakers of Aztecan languages and their internal diversity suggest a long-term presence in the area (Figs. 3-4). Recently, different pan-Mesoamerican words have been proposed as potentially old loans from Aztecan (Dakin and Wichmann 2000; Dakin 2001; Beekman, Cowgill et al. 2010). These old Aztecan loans must probably have entered Mesoamerican languages long before the emergence of the Aztec Empire. It has been also proposed, based on epigraphic evidence, that Nahuatl speakers might be inhabitants of Teotihuacan (Dakin and Wichmann 2000, Macri and Looper 2003; Alfonso Lacadena pers. comm. and David Stuart pers. comm. in Pallan Gayol and Melendez Guadarrama 2010; Dav-letshin in press). Once again, these proposals were criticized and are not generally accepted (Kaufman and Justeson 2007, 2009). As for distant relationships of Uto-Aztecan, these remain controversial and difficult to use in locating the Uto-Aztecan homeland (Whorf and Trager 1937; Hill 2008; Wichmann 1999).
I will not discuss here the controversial proposals offered for the Uto-Aztecan homeland and the arrival of Aztecan speakers in Mesoamerica; as I have stated above, I believe that they are difficult to evaluate, though personally I feel that Jane H. Hill's hypothesis deserves more attention than it has received. I want to present linguistic evidence which implies that the movement of Proto-Uto-Aztecan speakers to the Aztecan homeland was accompanied by a
drastic change in their ecological environment. As far as I know, this evidence has been never discussed before.
Let us consider some Proto-Uto-Aztecan reconstructions and their Proto-Aztecan counterparts. Proto-Aztecan reconstructions follow Karen Dakin (1982; see also Campbell and Langacker 1978); provisional Proto-Uto-Aztecan reconstructions are given after Campbell and Langacker 1978 and Wick Miller 2003 (see also Miller 1967).1
Proto-Uto-Aztecan Proto-Aztecan
1 **a:y- 'turtle' *a:yo:- 'turtle'
2 **kaLa- 'crow, raven' *ka:ka:lo:- 'crow'
3 **kwa- 'coyote' *koyo:- 'coyote'
4 **mu:- 'fly (insect)' *mo:yo:- 'mosquito, flying insect'
5 **tikuL- 'ground squirrel' *t3chalo:- 'squirrel'
6 **ti/ukuL- 'owl' *takolo:- 'burrowing owl'
These Proto-Aztecan reconstructions are similar in many respects to the corresponding Proto-Uto-Aztecan ones; the main difference is the presence of the -yo: suffix. In accordance with morphophonemic rules, characteristic of Aztecan languages (see for example, Sullivan 1988: 13), the palatal glide y of the suffix is changed to l when the noun stem ends with l; in this case, the geminated consonantal cluster seems to be simplified. The reconstructions pertain to a single semantic domain: they represent animal names. Set 2 shows reduplication of the initial syllable and regular loss of the final short vowel. Alternatively, proto-Aztecan *ka:ka:lo:- 'crow' can be understood as an onomatopoetic description 'animal of the making ka sound' (Dakin 2001: 111), including the suffix l- of deverbal nouns and the suffix yo:- of abstract possession. Set 3 shows irregular correspondences, but irregular developments are typical for the words meaning 'coyote' in Uto-Aztecan languages (Campbell and Langacker 1978: Set 217; Miller 2003). One more example can be added to the list if Gila River Pima oosad 'ocelot' and Classical Nahuatl o:se:lo:-tl 'jaguar, ocelot' are related (Dakin 2001: 110). Some of the Uto-Aztecan animal names discussed here seem to include a suffix **-LV; these animal names might be descriptive, as for example, **ti/ukuL- 'owl', lit. 'animal of night', cf. **tuku 'night, darkness, black' and **tikuL- 'ground squirrel', lit. 'animal of earth holes/burrows', cf. **tin 'rock, stone', **tip-'earth', **ki 'house'.
Proto-Uto-Aztecan lexicon is poorly preserved in the vocabulary of Aztecan languages, in particular in the domains of plant and animal names. Therefore, six items is a considerable number of matches for a particular development. This development belongs to the Proto-Aztecan level, because daughter languages always show the suffix -yo: when reflexes are preserved (for abbreviations and sources see Appendix A).
1. *a:yo:- 'turtle': CNa a:yo:-tl, Pip a:yu:-tzin, Poch ayut, TNa oyutl, cf. also 'armadillo', literally 'turtle rabbit': CNa a:yo:-to:ch-in, NPN ayotochi, PNa ayotochin, ZNa a:yoto:chi:n.
2. *ka:ka:lo- 'crow': CNa ka:ka:lo:-tl, ZNa ka:ka:lo:t, cf. also 'frangipanni, a kind of flower (Plumeria rubra)', literally 'crow flower': CNa ka:ka:lo:-xo:chi-tl, NPN kakaloxochitl, PNa ga:ga:loxochit; Pip Ka:ka:lu:tan 'San Julian (a town name)' (borrowed in Mexican Spanish).
1 Orthographic conventions follow Spanish and traditional Mesoamerican practice, when it is not inconsistent. This means that /k/ is /k/, /kw/ is /kw/, /te/ is /tz/, /f/ is /ch/, /X/ is /tl/, /// is /x/, /j/ is /y/, vowel length is /V:/, etc. L stands for proto-Uto-Aztecan medial liquid, whether /r/ or /l/ or both is unclear.
3. *koyo:- 'coyote': CNa koyo:-tl, NPN koyotl, MNa koyo:?, PNa goyo:t, Pip kuyu:t, Poch koyud, T koyutl, ZNa koyo:t 'white man' (borrowed in Spanish).
4. *mo:yo:- 'mosquito, flying insect': CNa mo:yo:-tl, JNa muyut, MNa mo:yo:?, NPN moyotl 'jejen', Pip mu:yu:t, PNa mo:yot, Poch moyut, TNa muyutl, ZNa mo:yo:t.
5. *tdchalo:- 'squirrel': CNa techalo:-tl, NPN techalotl, cf. also TNa chachalutl and ZNa chechelo:t 'squirrel', which belong to an independent set 'animal of the making chV sound'.
6. *tdkolo:- 'owl': CNa tekolo:-tl, JNa tekulut, NPN tekolotl, PNa te:golo:t, Pip tekulu:t, Poch tekolot (a loan?), TNa tekolutl, ZNa tekolo:t (borrowed in Mexican Spanish and Meso-american languages).
When they are attested, Huichol cognates of the aforementioned words bear no traces of the suffix in question: ?aayee 'turtle', kaarai 'crested caracara (Polybornus plancus)', teeku 'fox squirrel' (Grimes 1980). Remarkably, some Proto-Aztecan animal names do not include the augment -yo:; see, for example, **maso/a- 'deer' > *masa:- 'deer' and **hupa 'smell, skunk' > *ipa 'skuns'. Campbell and Langacker 1978 reconstruct eight animal names for proto-Aztecan with Uto-Aztecan etymologies: *a:yo:- 'turtle', *ko:wa- 'snake', *koyo:- 'coyote', *masa:- 'deer', *mo:yo:-'fly', *tdkolo:- 'owl', *to:to:- 'bird', *tzi:ka- 'ant'. Four of them (*ko:wa- 'snake', *masa:- 'deer', *to:to:- 'bird', *tzi:ka- 'ant') do not show the augment.2
The Aztecan suffix -yo: denotes abstract possession: it derives abstract nouns from agentive and possessive nouns, indicates possession of the object or quality implicit in the noun and denotes that the object or its possessor has the quality of the noun (see for example, Sullivan 1988: 18, 95, 143-144). It also marks inalienable possession. The suffix was used to create descriptive animal names in Proto-Aztecan: *tzopi:lo:- 'vulture', literally, 'animal of the pierc-ing/stabing', from **tza/opi 'to pierce, punch; spike, thorn', *ko:lo:- 'scorpion', literally, 'animal of the bending/twisting (refering to its tail)' from **ko- 'to bend, twist', etc. (Dakin 1982). To put it in other words, Proto-Aztecan 'coyote' *koyo:- literally means 'one of the coyote's' or 'somewhat like the coyote', Proto-Aztecan 'mosquito' *mo:yo:- literally means 'one of the mosquito's' or 'somewhat like the mosquito', etc. This change in meaning implies that Proto-Aztecan 'coyote', 'crow', 'mosquito', 'owl', 'squirrel', 'turtle' were similar, but not identical to their Proto-Uto-Aztecan relatives in appearance. A likely explanation for this is to suggest that the ecological environment of Proto-Uto-Aztecans was very different from that of Proto-Aztecans.3
Similar developments in animal and plant names are found in Eastern Polynesian languages. Rapid movement and expansion of humans in Eastern Polynesia was accompanied by a drastic change in their ecological environment. Several morphological models were used to create names for animals and plants which were similar in appearance to their original proto-
2 As Campbell and Langacker (1978) notice, the set for 'ant' **sika- is speculative to a certain degree; it shows irregular developments and is probably not to be reconstructed for Proto-Uto-Aztecan.
3 Karen Dakin (2001) proposed a possible Uto-Aztecan etymology for the suffix **-ra?a-wi, where the morpheme **ra?a is associated with inalienable possession and **wi seems to be some sort of augmentative. Positing a complex set of morphophonemic rules, Dakin suggests that the suffix was productively used to create descriptive animal names in Proto-Uto-Aztecan times: **mu- 'nose' + **-ra?a-wi > 'fly, mosquito', **tiku- 'darkness, night' + **-ra?a-wi > 'owl', **kwa- 'tree (?)' + **-ra?a-wi > 'eagle'. Many of the proposed morphophonemic rules are unique developments based on few examples; in many cases semantic relationships between the animal and its proposed descriptive name are opaque. The -yo: derivation on animal names in Proto-Aztecan times, proposed in this paper, seems to be a simpler explanation, involving only morphophonemic rules that are already well-known in Aztecan languages.
types; among these were reduplication, which gives an attenuated meaning, and the similitude prefixes ko:- and po:-, translated as 'somewhat, -ish' (Biggs 1991). The use of the ko:- prefix and reduplication to derive new animal and plant names was very productive in Eastern Polynesian languages in the time of their expansion; the two processes can be found combined in the same word. Some revealing examples from Maori are given below (after Biggs 1991; Biggs and Clark N.d.).
Maori Proto-Polynesian
kawa-kawa 'a kind of plant (Macropiper excelsum)' *kawa 'a kind of plant (Piper methysticum)'
kiwa-kiwa 'a kind of fern' *kiwa 'a kind of fern'
ko:-kihi 'New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia expansa)' *kisi-kisi 'a kind of plant (Oxalis spp.)'
ko:-whara-whara 'a kind of plant (Astelia banksii)' *fala 'a kind of plant (Pandanus spp.)'
po:-hue 'several kind of trailing plants (Clematis spp., Muhlenbeckia sp., Passiflora tetrandra, Calystegia sp.)' *fue 'gourd (Lagenaria vulgaris)'
The distribution of Aztecan languages in Mesoamerica implies that the Aztecan homeland was located somewhere in Central Mexico or nearby (Fig. 4). The comparisons presented above indicate that the Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland was ecologically different from the place to which speakers of Proto-Aztecan eventually came.
Literature
Beekman, Christopher S., George L. Cowgill, Karen Dakin, Nicholas A. Hopkins, Robert M. Rosenswig, Kathryn E. Sampeck, Michael Swanton, Alejandro de Ávila, Bas van Doesburg, and Soren Wichmann. 2011. Comments on Kaufman and Justeson: "The history of the word for cacao in Ancient Mesoamerica". Ancient Mesoamerica 21: 415-441.
BELLWOOD, Peter. 1997. Prehistoric cultural explanations for widespread linguistic families. In: Patrick McConvell and Nicholas Evans (eds.), Archaeology and linguistics: aboriginal Australia in global perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp. 123-134.
Biggs, Bruce. 1991. A linguist visits the New Zealand bush. In: Andrew Pawley (ed.), Man and a half: Essays in Pacific anthropology and ethnobiology in honour of Ralph Bulmer. Auckland: Polynesian Society, pp. 67-72.
Biggs, Bruce, and Ross Clark. N.d. Polynesian lexicon project online. http://pollex.org.nz/
Boas, Franz. 1917. El dialecto mexicano de Pochutla, Oaxaca. International Journal of American Linguistics 1: 9-44.
Brewer, Forrest, and Jean G. Brewer. 1962. Vocabulario mexicano de Tetelcingo. Vocabularios indígenas "Mariano Silva y Aceves" 8. México D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Brockway, Earl, Trudy Hershey de Brockway y Leodegario Santos Valdés. 2000. Diccionario náhuatl del norte del estado de Puebla. Vocabularios indígenas "Mariano Silva y Aceves" 42. México D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Campbell, Lyle. 2003. What drives linguistic diversification and language spread? In: Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew (eds.), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 49-63.
CAMPBELL, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages. Oxford — New York: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, Lyle. 1988. The linguistics of Southern Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, 35. Provo, UTAH: Brigham Young University.
Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil language of El Salvador. Berlin: Mouton.
Campbell, Lyle, and Ronald W. Langacker. 1978. Proto-Aztecan vowels. International Journal of American Linguistics 44: 85-102, 197-210, 262-279.
Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman, and Thomas C. Smith-Stark. 1986. Meso-America as a linguistic area. Language 62(3): 530-570.
Carochi, Padre Horacio. 1645. Arte de la lengua mexicana con la declaration de los adverbios della. Mexico.
Dakin, Karen. 2001. Animals and vegetables, Uto-aztecan noun derivation, semantic classification and culture history. In: Laurel Brinton and Desiree Lundstrom (eds.): Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9-13 August 1999. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 105-117.
Dakin, Karen. 1982. La evolución fonológica del protonáhuatl. México D.F.: UNAM.
Dakin, Karen, and Soren Wichmann. 2000. Cacao and chocolate: A Uto-Aztecan perspective. Ancient Mesoamerica 11: 1-21.
Davletshin, Albert (in press). La lengua de los así llamados teotihuacanos e interpretaciones protonahuas para sus glosas en las inscripciones jeroglíficas mayas. To appear in: Nikolai Grube and Ingrid Kummels (eds.), Teotihuacan: Medios de comunicación y poder en la Ciudad de los Dioses. Bonn — Berlin.
Fowler, Catherine S. 1983. Some lexical clues to Uto-Aztecan prehistory. International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 224-257.
Fowler, Catherine S. 1972. Comparative Numic ethnobiology. University of Pittsburgh. Ph.D. dissertation.
García de León, Antonio. 1976. Pajapán. Un dialecto mexicano del golfo. Colección científica, Lingüística 43. México D.F.: SEP.
García de León, Antonio. 1967. La lengua de los ancianos de Jalupa, Tabasco. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 7: 267-81.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1980. Huichol life form classification I: Animals. International Journal of American Linguistics 22(5): 187-200.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1978. Uto-Aztecan *na-class verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 44(3): 211-222.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1977. Uto-Aztecan morphophonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 43(1): 27-36.
Hill, Jane. 2012. Subgrouping in Uto-Aztecan. Language Dynamics and Change 1(2): 241-278.
Hill, Jane H. 2008. Northern Uto-Aztecan and Kiowa-Tanoan: Evidence for contact between the Proto-languages? International Journal of American Linguistics 74: 155-88.
Hill, Jane H. 2003. Proto-Uto-Aztecan and the northern devolution. In: Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew (eds.), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 331-40.
Hill, Jane H. 2001. Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A community of cultivators in Central Mexico? American Anthropologist 103(4): 913-34.
Holman, Eric W., Cecil H. Brown, S0ren Wichmann, André Müller, Viveka Velupillai, Harald Hammarström, Hagen Jung, Dik Bakker, Pamela Brown, Oleg Belyaev, Matthias Urban, Robert Mailhammer, Johann-Mattis List, and Dmitry Egorov. 2011. Automated dating of the world's language families based on lexical similarity. Current Anthropology 52(б): 841-87S.
Justeson, John S., William M. Norman, Lyle Campbell, and Terrence Kaufman. 198S. The foreign impact on Lowland Mayan language and script. Middle American Research Institute Publication S3. New Orlean.
KARTTUNEN, Frances. 1983. An analytical dictionary of Nahuatl. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Kassian, Alexei, George Starostin, Anna Dybo, and Vasiliy Chernov. 2010. The Swadesh wordlist. An attempt at semantic specification. Journal of Language Relationship 4: 4б-89.
Kaufman, Terrence. 2001. The history of the Nawa language group from the earliest times to the sixteenth century: some initial results. Ms. http://www.albany.edu/anthro/maldp/papers.htm
Kaufman, Terrence. 1981. Comparative Uto-Aztecan phonology. Ms.
Kaufman, Terrence, and John Justeson. 2009. Historical linguistics and Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 20: 221-231.
Kaufman, Terrence, and John Justeson. 2007. The history of the word for cacao in Ancient Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 18: 193-237.
Key, Harold, y Mary Ritchie de Key. 19S3. Vocabulario mejicano de la Sierra de Zacapoaxtla, Puebla. México D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano y SEP.
Lacadena, Alfonso. 2008. Regional scribal traditions: Methodological implications for the decipherment of Nahuatl writing. P.A.R.I. Journal: Special Nahuatl Writing Issue 8(4): 1-22.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar I: An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Launey, Michel. 1979. Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques. Paris: L'Harmattan.
Luckenbach, Alvin H., and Richard S. Levy. 1980. The implications of Nahua (Aztecan) lexical diversity for Mesoamerican culture-history. American Antiquity 45(3): 455-4б1.
Macri, Martha, and Matthew Looper. 2003. Nahua in Ancient Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica б(1): 41-94.
Manaster Ramer, Alexis. 1992. A Northern Uto-Aztecan sound law: *-c- > *-y-. International Journal of American Linguistics 58(3): 251-2б8.
Miller, Wick R. 2003. Uto-Aztecan cognate set. Revised and expanded by Kenneth C. Hill. Ms.
Miller, Wick R. 1984. The classification of the Uto-Aztecan languages based on lexical evidence. International Journal of American Linguistics 50: 1-24.
Miller, Wick R. 1983. Uto-Aztecan languages. In: William C. Sturtevant (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Alfonso Ortiz (vol. ed. of vol. 10), Southwest. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, pp. 113-124.
MILLER, Wick R. 19б7. Uto-Aztecan cognate sets. UCPL 48. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California.
Pallán Gayol, Carlos, and Lucero Meléndez Guadarrama. 2010. Foreign Influences on the Maya Script. In: Laura Van Broekhoven, Rogelio Valencia Rivera, Benjamin Vis and Frauke Sachse (eds.): Proceedings of the 10th Maya European Conference: "The Maya and Their Neighbours. Internal and External Contacts Through Time". Universiteit Leiden en Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde (Universidad de Leiden,Holanda). 9-10 Diciembre 200S. Graz, Austria: Anton Saurwein, pp. 9-28.
Peiros, Ilia. 2010. Uto-Aztecan comparative linguistics and etymological databases. Journal of Language Relationship 4: 90-11б.
Sapir, Edward. 1913, 1919. Southern Paiute and Nahuatl: a study in Uto-Aztecan, Parts 1 and 2. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 10: 379-425, 11: 443-88. 1915. American Anthropologist 17: 98-120, 30б-328.
Starostin, Sergei A. 2000. Comparative-historical linguistics and lexicostatistics. In: Renfrew, Colin, April Mc-Mahon and Larry Trask (eds.), Time depth in historical linguistics. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Vol. 1, pp. 223-2б5.
Stubbs, Brian. N.d. Uto-Aztecan. http://uto-aztecan.org/uanist/
Sullivan, Thelma D. 1988. Compendium of Nahuatl grammar. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988.
Whorf, Benjamin L., and George L. Trager. 1937. The relationship of Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan. American Anthropologist 39: 609-624.
Wichmann, Soren. 1999. On the relationship between Uto-Aztecan and Mixe-Zoquean. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 24(2): 101-113.
Wichmann, Soren, André Müller, and Viveka Velupillai. 2010. Homelands of the world's language families:
A quantitative approach. Diachronica 27(2): 247-276. Wolgemuth Walters, Joseph Carl, Marilyn Minter de Wolgemuth, Plácido Hernández Pérez, Esteban Pérez Ramírez y Christopher Hurst Upton. 2002. Diccionario náhuatl de los municipios de Mecayapan y Tatahuicapan de Juárez, Veracruz. Segunda edición electrónica. México D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. http://www.sil.org/mexico/nahuatl/istmo/G020a-DiccNahIst-nhx.htm
Appendix A: 100-wordlists for Aztecan languages4
1. ALL (TODOS)
CNa mochi-n (1), TNa nochi: (1), NPN nochi-n (1), MNa (i)nochi (1), PNa nochi (1), JNa muchi (1), Pip muchi (1), Poch nochó (1). Note: the n- and in- forms are due to the assimilation with the in article.
2. ASHES
CNa nex-tli (1), TNa tlako-nex-tli: (1), NPN tleko-nex-tli (1), MNa kwa-ne:x (1), PNa ba-ne:x (1), JNa kó-nex-ti (1), Pip nex-ti (1), Poch nox-t (1).
3. BARK
CNa e:wa-tl (1), TNa yewa-yu-tl (1), NPN -yewa-yo (1), MNa kwa-kahlo:-? (2), PNa -ba-gahlo (2), JNa -sul-koi (3), Pip -e:wa-yu (1).
4. BELLY
CNa -i?te (1), TNa -ihte (1), NPN -ihte, -pox (1), MNa -talax (exterior) (2), PNa -ihti (1), JNa -ihti (1), Pip -ihti (1).
5. BIG
CNa we:(i) (1), TNa bieyi: (1), NPN weyi (1), MNa weyi (1), PNa we:y (1), JNa wey (1), Pip we:y (1), Poch wyom ? (huhióm) (1).
6. BIRD
CNa to:to:-tl (1), TNa tutu-tl (1), NPN toto-tl (1), MNa to:to:-? (1), PNa to:to-t (1), JNa tu:ru-t (1), Pip tu:tu-t (Santo Domingo de Guzmán), wi:lu-t (Cuisnahuat) (1).
7. BITE
CNa -ke?tzom(a) (1), TNa -ketzoma (1), NPN -tlan-kechiya (2), MNa -tan-kwa (3), PNa -tam-ba (3), Pip -tan-kwa (3).
8. BLACK
CNa tli:l-tik (1), TNa tlil-ti:k, kapotz-ti:k (1), NPN tlil-tik (1), MNa pi:s-ti?, cha:po-ti? (2), PNa pis-tik (2), JNa yayák (3), Pip ti:l-tik (Santo Domingo de Guzmán), ku:-ti:l-tik (Cuisnahuat) (1).
4 Abbreviations and sources: CNa: Classical Nahuatl, Central Mexico (Karttunen 1983); JNa: Jalupa Nahuat, Tabasco (García de León 1967);
MNa: Mecayapan Nahuat, Veracruz (Wolgemuth, Wolgemuth et al. 2002);
NPN: North Puebla Nahuatl, North Puebla (Brockway, Brockway and Santos Valdés 2000);
PNa: Pajapán Nahuat, Veracruz (García de León 1976);
Pip: Pipil, El Salvador (Campbell 1985);
Poch: Pochutec, Oaxaca (Boas 1917);
TNa: Tetelcingo Nahuatl, Morelos (Brewer and Brewer 1966); ZNa: Zacapoaxtla Nahuatl, Puebla (Key and Key 1953).
9. BLOOD
CNa es-tli (1), TNa yes-tli: (1), NPN yes-tli (1), MNa es-ti (1), PNa es-ti (1), JNa es-ti (1), Pip es-ti (1), Poch es-t (1).
10. BONE
CNa omi-tl (1), TNa mi:mi:te-tl (2), NPN ohmi-tl (1), MNa omi-? (1), PNa omi-t (1), JNa umi-t (1), Pip u:mi-t (1), Poch o-t (1).
11. BREAST
CNa -chi:chi:wal (1), TNa -chichi:wal (de mujer) (1), NPN -chichiwal (de mujer) (1), MNa -chi:chiwal (teta) (1), PNa -chichiwal (teta) (1), JNa -chichi (teta) (2), Pip -chi:chih (teta) (2), Poch /no/-tipén (mi pecho) (3).
12. BURN TR.
CNa -tlatia: (1), TNa -tlatia (1), NPN -tititza (2), MNa -tatiá (1), PNa -tata (1), JNa -tati (1), Pip -tatia (1), Poch -tatí (1).
13. CLAW(NAIL)
CNa iste-tl (1), TNa iste (1), NPN ist-n (1), MNa isti (1), PNa -isti (1), JNa -isti (1), Pip isti-t (1), Poch ox-t (1).
14. CLOUD
CNa mix-tli (1), TNa mex-tli: (1), NPN (tepe)-mex-tli (1), MNa mix-ti (1), PNa mi:x-ti (1), Pip mix-ti (1), Poch pix-t? (2).
15. COLD
CNa i:tz-tik, sesek (2), TNa itz-ti:k (1), NPN itz-tik (1), MNa sese:? (2), PNa sese:k (2), JNa sesek (2), Pip sesek (2), Poch piná, kug'li (3).
16. COME (defective verb, preterit-as-present forms)
CNa witz (1), TNa ibitz (1), NPN witz (1), MNa wi:? (1), PNa wi:tz (1), JNa ñotz (2), Pip wi:tz (1), Poch witz (1).
17. DIE
CNa mik(i) (1), TNa mi:ki: (1), NPN miki (1), MNa miki (1), PNa migi (1), JNa miki (1), Pip miki (1), Poch mok (1).
18. DOG
CNa chichi-(to:n) (1), TNa chi:chi:-tu (1), NPN chichi (1), MNa pe:lo (Spanish loan) (-1), PNa pelo (Spanish loan) (-1), JNa chuchu (1), Pip pe:lu (Spanish loan) (1), Poch tachóm (2).
19. DRINK
CNa -on-i: (thither-drink) (1), TNa -on-i (1), NPN -on-i (1), MNa -on-i-á (1), PNa -on-i (1), JNa ¡xi-kl-i (imperative form) (1), Pip -un-i (1), Poch tem-í (mouth-drink?) (1).
20. DRY
CNa wa:k-ki (1), TNa wah-ki: (1), NPN wah-ki (1), MNa wa:k-to? (1), PNa wa:k-tok (1), JNa wak-tuk (1), Pip wa:k-tuk (1), Poch wak (1).
21. EAR
CNa nakas-tli (1), TNa -nakas (1), NPN -nakas (1), MNa nakas (1), PNa -nagas (1), JNa -nakas (1), Pip -nakas (1), Poch nekés-t (1).
22. EARTH
CNa tla:l-li (1), TNa tlöli: (1), NPN tlali (1), MNa ta:hli (1), PNa ta:hli (1), JNa tahli (1), Pip ta:l (1), Poch tal (1).
23. EAT
CNa -kwa: (1), TNa -kwa (1), NPN -kwa (1), MNa -kwa (1), PNa -ba: (1), JNa -bwa: (1), Pip kwa (1), Poch kwa (1).
24. EGG
CNa to:tol-te-tl (1), TNa tutol-tetl (1), NPN totol-te-tl (1), MNa teksis (2), PNa teksis (2), JNa pil-tzin (3), Pip teksis-ti (2), Poch ti-tó-t (4).
25. EYE
CNa -i:x-telolo? (1), TNa -ix-telolo (1), NPN -ix-telolo (1), MNa -i:x (1), PNa -i:x-tololo (1), JNa -i:x (1), Pip -i:x (1), Poch ix-totolú-t (1).
26. FAT N.
CNa chiya:wis-tli (-1), TNa manteka (Spanish loan), chi:yöwa (-1), NPN chiak-tli (-1), MNa -tomahka (su gordura), xe:poh (de res, Spanish loan) (-1), PNa mantega (Spanish loan), pagax (Spanish loan) (-1), JNa manteka (Spanish loan) (-1).
27. FEATHER
CNa ihwi-tl (1), TNa tohmitl (su pluma, pelo: itohmeyo) (2), NPN ihwi-tl (1), MNa tzohmi-t (3), PNa tzohmi-t (3), JNa iy-uhwi-yu (1), Pip -uhmi-yu (4).
28. FIRE
CNa tle-tl (1), TNa tle-tzin-tli: (1), NPN tle-tl (1), MNa tit-ti (1), PNa ti-t (1), JNa ti-t (1), Pip ti:-t (1), Poch te-t (1).
29. FISH
CNa mich-in (1), TNa mi:chi: (1), NPN michi (1), MNa to:poh (2), PNa to:poh (2), JNa xe:neh (3), Pip michin (1), Poch michóm (1).
30. FLY V.
CNa patla:n(i) (1), TNa patlöni (1), NPN patlani (1), MNa pata:ni (1), PNa pata:ni (1), JNa parani (1), Pip pata:ni (1), Poch patánk (1).
31. FOOT
CNa (i)kxi-tl (1), TNa -ikxi: (1), NPN -ikxi (1), MNa ikxi (1), PNa -ikxi (1), JNa -ikxi (1), Pip (i)kxi (1), Poch Inol-xói 'mi pie' (2).
32. FULL
CNa te:n-tok (1), TNa tien-ti:ka (1), NPN ten-tok, temi (1), MNa te:n-tot (1), PNa te:n-tok (1), JNa ne:-tik (2), Pip te:n-tuk (1).
33. GIVE
CNa -maka (1), TNa -maka (1), NPN -maka (1), MNa -maka (1), PNa -maga (1), JNa -ma (1), Pip -maka (1), Poch -meká (1).
34. GOOD
CNa kwal-li (1), TNa kwali:, yek-tik 'recto, santo, perfecto' (1), NPN kwali (1), MNa ye:k-ti (2), PNa yek-ti (2), JNa yek-ti (2), Pip ye:k (2), Poch ulík (cf. CNa we:lik 'something delicious, pleasing') (3).
34. GOOD
CNa ye:k-tli (2).
35. GREEN
CNa xoxok-tik (1), TNa xoxok-ti:k (1), NPN xoxok-tik (1), MNa xoxok-tit (1), PNa xoxok-tik (1), JNa xuxuí-k (2), Pip xuxuwi-k (2), Poch xwi (3).
36. HAIR
CNa tzon-tli (1), TNa tzon-tli: (1), NPN tzon-tli (1), MNa tzon-kal (2), PNa tzon-gal (2), JNa tzun-ti (1), Pip tzun-kal (2), Poch tzon (1).
37. HAND
CNa -ma: (1), TNa -mö (1), NPN -ma-n (1), MNa mayit (1), PNa -ma: (1), JNa -ma:-n (1), Pip -mey (1), Poch maí (1).
38. HEAD
CNa kwa:(i)-tl (2), TNa -tzon-teko (1), NPN -tzon-teko (1), MNa -tzon-tekon (1), PNa -tzon-tegon (1), JNa tzun-tekon (1), Pip tzun-tekuma-t (1), Poch kwaí-t (2).
39. HEAR
CNa -kak(i) (1), TNa -kaki: (1), NPN -kaki (1), MNa -kaki (1), PNa -gagi (1), JNa -kai (1), Pip -ka:ki (1), Poch -kekí (1).
40. HEART
CNa yo:l-li (1), TNa yuloh-tli: (1), NPN -yol-o (1), MNa -ya:lmah (Spanish loan) (-1), PNa -alma (Spanish loan) (-1), JNa yuh-lu (1), Pip -yu(:)l (1), Poch Inl-olyú (mi corazón) (1).
41. HORN
CNa kwa:-kwaw(i)-tl (1), NPN -kwakow (1), MNa kwa:kwa (1), PNa -ba:ba: (1), JNa kokoit (1), Pip -kachoh (Spanish loan) (-1).
42. I
CNa ne?wa:-tl (1), TNa naha (1), NPN nehwa-tl (1), MNa neh (1), PNa neha (1), JNa nehe (1), Pip na ~ nah ~ naha (1), Poch nen (1).
43. KILL
CNa -miki:-tia: (1), TNa -mi:k-ti:a (1), NPN -mik-tia (1), MNa -mik-tia (1), PNa -mik-tia (1), JNa -mik-ti (1), Pip -mik-tia (1), Poch moktí (1).
44. KNEE
CNa tlan-kwa:(i)-tl (1), TNa -tlan-kwate (1), NPN -tlan-kwa (1), MNa tan-kwa:-? (1), PNa -tam-ba (1), JNa -tam-bwa-n (1), Pip -tewahka (2).
45. KNOW
CNa mat(i) (1), TNa -mati: (1), NPN -mati (1), MNa -mati (1), PNa -mati (1), JNa -ma (1), Pip -mati (1), Poch metí (1).
46. LEAF
CNa iswa-tl (1), TNa xi:bi:tl (2), NPN xiwi-tl (2), MNa iswa? (1), PNa -iswa-t (1), JNa iswa-t (1), Pip iswa-t (1), Poch xut (2).
47. LIE (SE ACUESTA)
CNa mo-te:ka (1), TNa mo-tieka (1), NPN mo-teka (1), MNa mo-te:ca (1), PNa mo-tega (1), JNa mu-reka-k (acostado) (1), Pip mu-te:ka (1), Poch teké (1).
48. LIVER
CNa e:l-li (-1), NPN -yel-tlapach (-1), MNa -yo:l (-1), Pip -el-tapach (-1).
49. LONG
CNa we:iyak (1), TNa beyak (1), NPN weyak (1), MNa we:yakti? (1), PNa we:yak (1), JNa weyak (1), Pip weyak (1).
50. LOUSE
CNa atemi-tl (1), TNa ati:mi:-tl (1), NPN pioho (Spanish loan) (-1), MNa atimi? (1), PNa a:tin (1), JNa a:tin (1), Pip atime-t (1), Poch atóm-t (1).
51. MAN
CNa ta:ka-tl, okich-tli (1), TNa umbre (Spanish loan), tlöca-tl (1), NPN tlakatl (1), MNa ta:ga-? (1), PNa ta:ga-t (1), JNa ta:ka-t (1), Pip ta:ka-t (1), Poch okóx-t, teké-t (1).
52. MANY (MUCHOS)
CNa miaki:n ~ miaki:nti:n ~ miakti:n ~ mi:miak (1), TNa meyak (1), NPN miak (1), MNa mia? (mucho), miakeh (muchos) (1), PNa miak (muchos) (1), JNa miakpa (muchos) (1), Pip miyak (mucho, muchos, bastante) (1), Poch asók (mucho, muchos, muy) (2).
53. MEAT
CNa naka-tl (1), TNa naka-tl (1), NPN naka-tl (1), MNa naka-? (1), PNa naga-t (1), JNa naka-t (1), Pip naka-t (1), Poch neké-t (esta carne está manida), tutú-t (carne para comer) (1).
54. MOON
CNa me:tz-tli (1), TNa mietz-tli: (1), NPN metz-tli (1), MNa me:tz-ti, to-ye:-tzin (lit. 'nuesta madrecita') (1), PNa me:s-ti, to-ye:-tzin (1), JNa me:tz-ti (1), Pip me:tz-ti (1), Poch mes-t (1).
55. MOUNTAIN
CNa tepe:-tl (1), TNa tepie-tl (1), NPN tepe-tl (1), MNa tepe:-? (1), PNa tepe:-t (1), Pip tepe:-t (1).
56. MOUTH
CNa kam(a)-tl (1), TNa -kama-k (1), NPN -kama-k (1), MNa -te:n (2), PNa -te:n (2), JNa -te:n (2), Pip -te:n (2), Poch ten (2).
57. NAME
CNa to:ka:(i)-tl (1), TNa -tukö (1), NPN tokah-tli (1), MNa to:ka:-t (1), PNa -toga (1), JNa tuwa-n (1), Pip -tu:key (1), Poch kul (2).
58. NECK
CNa kech-tli (1), TNa -kech-kochtla (1), NPN -kech (1), MNa -kech (1), PNa -ge:ch (1), JNa -kech (1), Pip -kech-ku:yu
(1), Poch kox-t (pescuezo) (1).
59. NEW
CNa yankwi-k (1), TNa yankwi:-k (1), NPN yankwi-k (1), MNa yamkwi-? (1), PNa yambi-k (1), JNa yambwi-k (1), Pip yankwi-k (1).
60. NIGHT
CNa yowal-li (1), TNa yowali: (1), NPN yowali (1), MNa yowal (1), PNa ta-yoá (2), JNa ta-yuwa-k (2), Pip ta-yuwa
(2), Poch owél (1).
61. NOSE
CNa yak(a)-tl (1), TNa -yeka-tzol (1), NPN -yeka-k (1), MNa yak-ti (1), PNa yaga-t (1), JNa -yak (1), Pip -yak (1), Poch yeké-t (1).
62. NOT
CNa a?mo: (1), TNa amo (1), NPN ahmo (1), MNa aya:?, amo (1), PNa amó, ayá, a-té (2), JNa te (2), Pip te: tesu (2), Poch as (3).
63. ONE
CNa se: (bound form: sem) (1), TNa sie, sen-te (1), NPN seya (1), MNa se: (1), PNa se (1), JNa se (1), Pip se: (1), Poch se (1).
64. PERSON
CNa tla:ka-tl (-1), TNa hiente (Spanish loan), tlöka (-1), MNa hente (Spanish loan) (-1), PNa kristianoh (Spanish loan) (-1), JNa yohomeh (-1), Pip kristanuh (Spanish loan) (-1).
65. RAIN
CNa kiyaw(i)-tl (1), TNa ki:yabi:-tl (1), NPN kiyawi-tl (1), MNa kiahua:-? ~ tiahua:-? (1), PNa a:-tzona-t (2), JNa chima:-t (3), Pip a:-t (4), Poch yek-t (5).
66. RED
CNa chi:-chi:l-tik (cf. chi:l-li 'chili pepper') (1), TNa chi-chi-lti:k (1), NPN chi-chil-tik (1), MNa chi:l-ti? (1), PNa ta-tawi-k (cf. CNa tla:w(i)-tl 'red ochre') (2), JNa traik (2), Pip chi:l-tik (1).
67. ROAD
CNa o?-tli (1), TNa oh-tli: (1), NPN oh-tli (1), MNa oh-ti (1), PNa oh-ti (1), JNa uh-ti (1), Pip uh-ti (1), Poch ot'kán (1).
68. ROOT
CNa nelwa-tl (1), TNa nelwa-yu-tl (1), NPN nelwa-tl (1), MNa nelwa-? (1), PNa ba-takson (2), JNa talwa-t (3), Pip nelwa-t (1).
69. ROUND
CNa yawal-tik (cosa redonda como rodela) (1), TNa yewal-ti:k (1), NPN yewal-tik (1), MNa yawal-ti? (plano), mimil-ti? (esférico) (1), PNa monso (a loan?) (2), JNa tulutz-tik (3), Pip yawal-nah (circular), mi-mil-nah (rollizo), ul-ul-nah (esférico) (1).
70. SAND
CNa xa:l-li (1), TNa xöli: (1), NPN xali (1), MNa xa:hli (1), PNa xa:hli (1), JNa xa:hli (1), Pip a:-xa:l (1).
71. SAY
CNa (i)?toa: (to say something), (i)lwia: (to say something to someone) (1), TNa -htoa (1), NPN -ihtoa (1), MNa k-ihtoa, k-ihliá (algo a alguien) (1), PNa -ihtoa, -ihlia (1), JNa -ihli (2), Pip ilwia (2), Poch ití (decirle), nuká (decirlo) (3).
72. SEE
CNa (i)tta (1), TNa -hta (1), NPN -ita (1), MNa -ita (1), PNa -ita (1), JNa -ira (1), Pip ita (1), Poch itá (1).
73. SEED
CNa ach-tli (1), TNa xi:n-öch-tli: (1), NPN achtli, xin-achtli (1), MNa -yo:l (2), PNa -yo:l (2), JNa yuhlu (2), Pip i:x (3), Poch ax-t (cf. ¡no/-achú 'mi semilla') (1).
74. SIT
CNa mo-tla:lia: (1), TNa mo-tlöli:a (1), NPN mo-tlalia (1), MNa mo-ta:liá (1), PNa mo-ta:li/mo-tzogoloa (1), JNa mu-ralih-tuk (sentado) (1), Pip mu-ta:lia (1), Poch metzá (2).
75. SKIN
CNa e:wa-tl (skin), kwetlax-tli (leather) (1), TNa -yewayo (de hombre), -kwi:tlaxyo (de animal) (1), NPN -yewayo (1), MNa kahlo:-? (2), PNa -betax (3), JNa bwéraxti (3), Pip -e:wayu (piel), kwetax-ti (cuero) (1), Poch kwetéx-t (piel), kwetax (cuero) (3).
76. SLEEP
CNa koch(i) (1), TNa kochi: (1), NPN kochi (1), MNa kochi (1), PNa -gochi (1), JNa -kuchi (1), Pip kuchi (1), Poch kochí (1).
77. SMALL
CNa tepi-to:n, tepi-tzin (1), TNa tzitzi:ki:-tzi (2), NPN kitzinin (3), MNa ali:m-pa (4), PNa chihchinti-tzin (5), JNa tziri-tuk (6), Pip achih-chin, atzih-tzin (7), Poch nixtún (pequeño, poquito), túchi (pequeño) (8).
78. SMOKE
CNa po:k-tli (1), TNa puk-tli: (1), NPN pok-tli (1), MNa po:k-ti (1), PNa po:k-ti (1), JNa pu:k-ti (1), Pip puk-ti (1), Poch a-potók-t (2).
79. STAND
CNa mo-ketza(a) (1), TNa mo-ketza (1), NPN mo-tel-ketza, mo-ketza (1), MNa mo-ketza (1), PNa mo-getza (1), JNa ihkatuk (parado) (-1), Pip mu-ketza (1), Poch x-mo-ktzé (¡Párate!) (1).
80. STAR
CNa si:tlal-in (1), TNa sitlali: (1), NPN sitlali (1), MNa si:talin (1), PNa lusero (Spanish loan) (-1), JNa si:tal (1), Pip si:tal (1).
81. STONE
CNa te-tl (1), TNa tie-te-tu (1), NPN te-tl (1), MNa te?-ti (1), PNa te-t (1), JNa xa:l-te-t (1), Pip te-t (1), Poch to-t (1).
82. SUN
CNa to:na-tiw (1), TNa tunali: (1), NPN tonal-tzin-tli (1), MNa to-tah-tzi:n (lit. 'our little (rever.) father') (2), PNa to:nati (1), JNa rontin (1), Pip tu:nal (1), Poch tunél (1).
83. SWIM
CNa a:-wila:n(a), m-a:-neloa: (1), TNa m-ö-bi:löna (1), NPN m-al-tiya (2), MNa a:-pata:ni (water-fly), a:-hkitiá (ir flotando) (3), PNa -a:hkia (3).
84. TAIL
CNa kwitlapil-li (1), TNa -kwi:tlapi:l (1), NPN -kwitlapil (1), MNa kwitapi:l (1), PNa -bitapil (1), JNa -bwirapil (1), Pip -kwitlapil (1).
85. THAT
CNa in-o:n (1), TNa i:n-u, nieka, i:nu nieka (1), NPN in-on (1), MNa in-e:pa (2), PNa ho:n (1), JNa hu:ni (1), Pip uni (1), Poch namél (3).
86. THIS
CNa in-i:n (1), TNa in-i, nönka, in-i nönka (1), NPN in-in (1), MNa in-i:n (1), PNa hi:n (1), JNa hi:ni (1), Pip ini (1), Poch iná (1).
87. THOU
CNa te?wa:-tl (1), TNa taha (1), NPN tehwa (1), MNa teh (1), PNa teha (1), JNa tehe (1), Pip ta(h) ~ taha (1), Poch mwen (2).
88. TONGUE
CNa nene-pil-li (1), TNa -nenepi:l (1), NPN -nenepil (1), MNa lenwa (Spanish loan) (-1), PNa -nenepil (1), JNa -ne:nepil (1), Pip -nenepil (1), Poch nenepíl (1).
89. TOOTH
CNa tlan-tli (1), TNa -tlan-koch (1), NPN -tlan (1), MNa tan-ti (1), PNa -tan (1), JNa -ta:n (1), Pip -tan (1).
90. TREE
CNa kwaw(i)-tl (1), TNa kwabi:-tl (1), NPN kowi-tl (1), MNa kwawi-? (1), PNa bawi-t (1), JNa koi-t (1), Pip kwawi-t (1), Poch kwagú-t (1).
91. TWO
CNa o:me (1), TNa ume (1), NPN ome (1), MNa o:me (1), PNa o:me (1), JNa u:me (1), Pip u:me (1), Poch omém (1).
92. WALK (GO)
CNa ne?-nemi (1), TNa neh-nemi: (1), NPN neh-nemi (1), MNa neh-nemi (1), PNa neh-nemi (1), JNa neh-nemi (1), Pip neh-nemi (1), Poch uí (2).
93. WARM (HOT)
CNa to-to:n-ki (hot), a:-yama:nil-a:-tl (tepid water), yama:n-ki (warm of water, cf. <yamanqui ic mixamia> [Primeros Memoriales 81r]) (1), TNa totun-ki: (caliente), yemön-ki: (blando, suave, tierno, tibio) (1), NPN totonki (caliente), yemanki (agua, también suave) (1), MNa toto:ni? (caliente), hokox (tibio, calentito: a loan?) (1), PNa toto:nik (caliente) (1), JNa tru:nik (caliente), yamanik (blando) (1), Pip tutu:nik (caliente), yamanka (tibio) (1), Poch tuní (caliente) (2).
94. WATER
CNa a:-tl (1), TNa ö-tzin-tli (reverential diminutive suffix -tzin) (1), NPN a-tl (1), MNa a:?-ti (1), PNa a:-t (1), JNa ma:-t (2), Pip a:-t (1), Poch a-t (1).
95. WE
CNa te?wa:n (1), TNa tehwa, tehwante (1), NPN tehwan, tehwanten (todos) (1), MNa tehameh (incl.), nehameh (excl.) (1), PNa tehameh (1), JNa tohomen (1), Pip tehemet (1), Poch twén (1).
96. WHAT
CNa tle(?) (1), TNa tlini:nu (1), NPN tlen (1), MNa te: (1), PNa te: (1), JNa tai (1), Pip ta: (1), Poch te (1).
97. WHITE
CNa ista:k (1), TNa chip:pöwak, istök (1), NPN istak (1), MNa ista:?, ichkati? (1), PNa ista:k (1), JNa ista:k (1), Pip istak (1), Poch chupék (cf. CNa chipa:wak) (2).
98. WHO
CNa a:k (1), TNa öki:nu (1), NPN akin (1), MNa a:? (1), PNa a:k (1), JNa aik (1), Pip ka: ~ kah ~ kahuni (2), Poch ak (1).
99. WOMAN
CNa siwa:-tl ~ sowa-tl (1), TNa sowa-tl (1), NPN siwa-tl (1), MNa siwa:-? (1), PNa soá:-t (1), JNa suwa-t (1), Pip siwa:-t (1), Poch g'las-t (2).
100. YELLOW
CNa kos-tik (1), TNa kosti:k (1), NPN kostik (1), MNa kosti? (1), PNa gostik (1), JNa yuksik (2), Pip tultik (3).
Appendix B: Reconstructed 100-wordlist for Proto-Aztecan
all (todos) *mochi-mi good *ye:kV-tla root *na-lV-waH-tla
ashes *naxi-tla green ? round *yawalV-ti-ka ?
bark *e:-waH-yo:-tla hair *-tzomi sand *xa:-li-tla
belly *-ihti hand *-mah-yV say ?
big *wdhayV head *-kwah-yV see *-ihta
bird *to:to:-tla hear *-kaki seed *a:chi-tla
bite *-kdhV-tzoma heart *-yo:li sit *mo-tlali-ha
black *tlahi-li-ti-ka horn *kwa:-kwa-wi-tla ? skin *e:-waH-tla
blood *3s-tla I *naha sleep *kochi
bone *-oho kill *-miki-ti-ha smoke ?
breast ? knee *-tlanV-kwah-yV stand *kdtza
burn tr. *-tla-ti-ha know *-mati star *sihi-tlali-mi
claw(nail) *-isti leaf *iswa-tla stone *td-tla
cloud *mixi-tla lie *mo-te:ka sun *to:na-li-tla ?
cold *sd-sdH-ka liver ? swim ?
come *wi:tza (preterit-as- long *wahaya-ka tail *-kwitlaH-pili
present form) louse *atdH-mi-tla that *o:nV ?
die *miki man *tla:kaH-tla this *inV ?
dog ? many *mayakV thou *taha
drink *-ihi meat *nakaH-tla tongue *-ndndH-pili
dry *wa:ki-ka moon *me:tza-tla tooth *-tlama
ear *naka-sa-tla mountain *tipe:-tla tree *kwa-wi-tla
earth *tla:lV-tla mouth *te:ni-tla two *o:ma
eat *-kwaha name *to:-ka:-yV-tla walk (go) *nah-nami
egg ? neck *kdchi-tla warm (hot) *to-to:na-ka ?
eye *-i:xi new *yankwi-ka water *a:-tla
fat n. ? night *yowa-li-tla ? we *tdha-mi-ti
feather *-ihwi nose *yakaH-tla what *tla(hi)
fire *tlahi-tla not ? white *ista-ha:-ka ?
fish *mi-chi-mi one *se:(m) who *a:kV
fly *patla:-ni person ? woman ?
foot *-ikxi rain ? yellow *kosa-ti-ka ?
full *te:nV-to-ka red *chi:lV-ti-ka ?
give tr. *-maka road *ohV-tla
Ко времени прихода европейцев носители многочисленных юто-астекских языков населяли огромную территорию, простирающуюся от штата Орегон на севере до Панамы на юге. В работе отмечается, что шесть праюто-астекских названий животных получают приращение в виде суффикса *-уо: на праастекском уровне. Этот суффикс может быть проинтерпретирован как общеастекский суффикс абстрактного обладания, который образует абстрактные существительные и указывает на обладание определенным качеством или свойством. Таким образом, прото-астекское койот *коуо:- буквально означает 'от койота, подобное койоту', сова *(эко1о:~ 'от совы, подобное сове' и т. д. Автор предполагает, что подобное семантическое развитие в праастекских названиях животных указывает на то, что природное окружение на праастекской прародине значительно отличалось от природного окружения в месте проживания носителей праюто-астекского языка.
Ключевые слова: юто-астекские языки, астекские языки, мезоамериканистика, доисторические миграции, реконструкция языковой прародины.
