The Nahuan or Aztecan languages are those languages of the Uto-Aztecan language family that have undergone a sound change, known as Whorf's law, that changed an original *t to /tɬ/ before *a.[2] Subsequently, some Nahuan languages have changed this /tɬ/ to /l/ or back to /t/, but it can still be seen that the language went through a /tɬ/ stage.[3] The best known Nahuan language is Nahuatl. Nahuatl is spoken by about 1.7 million Nahua peoples.[4]
Some authorities, such as the Mexican government, Ethnologue, and Glottolog, consider the varieties of modern Nahuatl to be distinct languages, because they are often mutually unintelligible and their speakers have distinct ethnic identities. As of 2008, the Mexican government recognizes thirty varieties that are spoken in Mexico as languages (see the list below).
Researchers distinguish between several dialect areas that each have a number of shared features: One classification scheme distinguishes innovative central dialects, spoken around Mexico City, from conservative peripheral ones spoken north, south and east of the central area, while another scheme distinguishes a basic split between western and eastern dialects. Nahuan languages include not just varieties known as Nahuatl, but also Pipil and the extinct Pochutec language.
Intelligibility
The differences among the varieties of Nahuatl are not trivial, and in many cases result in low or no mutual intelligibility: people who speak one variety cannot understand or be understood by those from another. Thus, by that criterion, they could be considered different languages. The ISO divisions referenced below respond to intelligibility more than to historical or reconstructional considerations.[5] Like the higher-level groupings, they also are not self-evident and are subject to considerable controversy.
Nevertheless, the variants all are clearly related and more closely related to each other than to Pochutec, and they and Pochutec are more closely related to each other than to any other Uto-Aztecan languages (such as Cora or Huichol, Tepehuán and Tarahumara, Yaqui/Mayo, etc.)
Historical linguistic research
Little work has been done in the way of the historical linguistics of Nahuatl proper or the Aztecan (nowadays often renamed Nahuan) branch of Uto-Aztecan.
Lyle Campbell and Ronald W. Langacker (1978), in a paper whose focus was the internal reconstruction of the vowels of Proto-Aztecan (or Proto-Nahuan), made two proposals of lasting impact regarding the internal classification of the Aztecan branch. They introduced the claim, which would quickly be received as proven beyond virtually any doubt, that the well known change of Proto-Uto-Aztecan */ta-/ to */t͡ɬa-/ was a development in Proto-Aztecan (Proto-Nahuan), not a later development in some dialects descended from Proto-Aztecan. Second, they adduced new arguments for dividing the branch in two subdivisions: Pochutec, whose sole member is the Pochutec language, which became extinct sometime in the 20th century, and General Aztec, which includes the Pipil language and all dialects spoken in Mexico which are clearly closely related to the extinct literary language, Classical Nahuatl. This binary division of Aztecan (Nahuan) was already the majority opinion among specialists, but Campbell and Langacker's new arguments were received as being compelling.[6] Furthermore, in "adopt[ing] the term 'General Aztec' ", they may in fact have been the ones to introduce this designation. Part of their reconstruction of the Proto-Aztecan vowels was disputed by Dakin (1983).
The most comprehensive study of the history of Nahuan languages is Una Canger's "Five Studies inspired by Nahuatl verbs in -oa" (Canger 1980), in which she explores the historical development of grammar of the verbs ending in -oa and -ia. Canger shows that verbs in -oa and -ia are historically and grammatically distinct from verbs in -iya and -owa, although they are not distinguished in pronunciation in any modern dialects. She shows the historical basis for the five verb classes, based on how they form the perfect tense-aspect, and she shows that all of the different forms of the perfect tense-aspect derives from a single -ki morpheme that has developed differently depending on the phonological shape of the verb to which it was suffixed. She also explains the historical development of the applicative suffix with the shape -lia and -lwia as coming from a single suffix of the shape -liwa.
In 1984 Canger and Dakin published an article in which they showed that Proto-Nahuan *ɨ had become /e/ in some Nahuan dialects and /i/ in others, and they proposed that this split was among the oldest splits of the Nahuan group.
Dakin has proposed a historical internal classification of Nahuan, e.g., Dakin (2000). She asserts two groups of migrations in central Mexico and eventually southwards to Central America. The first produced Eastern dialects. Centuries later, the second group of migrations produced Western dialects. But many modern dialects are the result of blending between particular Eastern dialects and particular Western dialects.
Campbell in his grammar of Pipil (1985) discussed the problem of classifying Pipil. Pipil is either a descendant of Nahuatl (in his estimation) or still to this day a variety of Nahuatl (in the estimation of for example Lastra de Suárez (1986) and Dakin (2001)).
Dakin (1982) is a book-length study (in Spanish) of the phonological evolution of Proto-Nahuatl. Dakin (1991) suggested that irregularities in the modern Nahuatl system of possessive prefixes might be due to the presence in Proto-Nahuan of distinct grammatical marking for two types of possession.
In the 1990s, two papers appeared addressing the old research problem of the "saltillo" in Nahuatl: a lost paper by Whorf (1993), and Manaster Ramer (1995).
Modern Nahuan languages and their classification
A Center-Periphery scheme was introduced by Canger in 1978, and supported by comparative historical data in 1980. Lastra de Suarez's (1986) dialect atlas that divided dialects into center and peripheral areas based on strictly synchronic evidence. The subsequent 1988 article by Canger adduced further historical evidence for this division.(Dakin 2003:261).
Studies of individual dialects
Until the middle of the 20th century, scholarship on Nahuan languages was limited almost entirely to the literary language that existed approximately 1540–1770 (which is now known as Classical Nahuatl, although the descriptor "classical" was never used until the 20th century[7]). Since the 1930s, there have appeared several grammars of individual modern dialects (in either article or book form), in addition to articles of narrower scope.[8]
Classification
The history of research into Nahuan dialect classification in the 20th century up to 1988 has been reviewed by Canger (1988). Before 1978, classification proposals had relied to a greater or lesser degree on the three way interdialectal sound correspondence /t͡ɬ ~ t ~ l/ (the lateral affricate /t͡ɬ/ of Classical Nahuatl and many other dialects corresponds to /t/ in some eastern and southern dialects and to /l/ in yet other dialects). Benjamin Lee Whorf (1937) had performed an analysis and concluded that /t͡ɬ/ was the reflex of Proto-Uto-Aztecan */t/ before /a/ (a conclusion which has been borne out). But in 1978 Campbell and Langacker made the novel proposal—which met with immediate universal acceptance—that this sound change had occurred back in Proto-Aztecan (the ancestor dialect of Pochutec and General Aztec) and that therefore the corresponding /t/ or /l/ in Nahuatl dialects were innovations.
As a geographical note: the northern part of the State of Puebla is universally recognized as having two subgroupings. The northern part of the State of Puebla is a long north to south lobe. In the middle of it from east-northeast to west-southwest runs the Sierra de Puebla (as Nahuanist linguists call it) or Sierra Norte de Puebla (as geographers call it). The "Sierra de Puebla" dialects are quite distinct from the "northern Puebla" dialects, which are spoken in northernmost Puebla State and very small parts of neighboring states.
Eastern–Western division
Dakin (2003:261) gives the following classification of Nahuatl dialects (in which the word "north" has been replaced by "northern"), based on her earlier publications, e.g., Dakin (2000).
- Eastern Nahuatl
- Western Nahuatl
Most specialists in Pipil (El Salvador) consider it to have diverged from Nahuatl to the point it should no longer be considered a variety of Nahuatl. Most specialists in Nahuan do not consider Pochutec to have ever been a variety of Nahuatl.
Center–Periphery division
Canger (1978; 1980) and Lastra de Suarez (1986) have made classification schemes based on data and methodology which each investigator has well documented. Canger proposed a single Central grouping and several Peripheral groupings. The Center grouping is hypothesized to have arisen during the Aztec Empire by diffusion of the defining feature (an innovative verb form) and other features from the prestigious dialect of the capital. The dialects which adopted it could be from multiple genetic divisions of General Aztec.[9] As for the various Peripheral groupings, their identity as Peripheral is defined negatively, i.e., by their lack the grammatical feature which, it is proposed, defines the Central grouping. Canger recognized the possibility that centuries of population migrations and other grammatical feature diffusions may have combined to obscure the genetic relationships (the branching evolution) among the dialects of Nahuatl.
Some of the isoglosses used by Canger to establish the Peripheral vs. Central dialectal dichotomy are these:
| Central | Peripheral |
|---|---|
| #e- initial vowel e | #ye- epenthetic y before initial e |
| mochi "all" | nochi "all" |
| totoltetl "egg" | teksistli "egg" |
| tesi "to grind" | tisi "to grind" |
| -h/ʔ plural subject suffix | -lo plural subject suffix |
| -tin preferred noun plural | -meh preferred noun plural |
| o- past augment | – absence of augment |
| -nki/-wki perfect participle forms | -nik/-wik perfect participle forms |
| tliltik "black" | yayawik "black" |
| -ki agentive suffix | -ketl/-katl agentive suffix |
Lastra de Suárez in her Nahuatl dialect atlas (1986) affirmed the concept of the Center/Periphery geographic dichotomy, but amended Canger's assignment of some subgroupings to the Center or the Periphery. The three most important divergences are probably those involving Huastec dialects, Sierra de Zongolica dialects,[10] and northwestern Guerrero dialects. Lastra classifies these as Peripheral, Central, and Central, respectively, while in each case Canger does the opposite.
The dialectal situation is very complex and most categorizations, including the one presented above, are, in the nature of things, controversial. Lastra wrote, "The isoglosses rarely coincide. As a result, one can give greater or lesser importance to a feature and make the [dialectal] division that one judges appropriate/convenient" (1986:189). And she warned: "We insist that this classification is not [entirely] satisfactory" (1986:190). Both researchers emphasized the need for more data in order for there to be advances in the field of Nahuatl dialectology. Since the 1970s, there has been an increase in research whose immediate aim is the production of grammars and dictionaries of individual dialects. But there is also a detailed study of dialect variation in the dialect subgroup sometimes known as the Zongolica (Andrés Hasler 1996). A. Hasler sums up the difficulty of classifying Zongolica thus (1996:164): "Juan Hasler (1958:338) interprets the presence in the region of [a mix of] eastern dialect features and central dialect features as an indication of a substratum of eastern Nahuatl and a superstratum of central Nahuatl.[11] Una Canger (1980:15–20) classifies the region as part of the eastern area, while Yolanda Lastra (1986:189–190) classifies it as part of the central area."
As already alluded to, the nucleus of the Central dialect territory is the Valley of Mexico. The extinct Classical Nahuatl, the enormously influential language spoken by the people of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, is one of the Central dialects. Lastra in her dialect atlas proposed three Peripheral groupings: eastern, western, and Huasteca.[12] She included Pipil in Nahuatl, assigning it to the Eastern Periphery grouping. Lastra's classification of dialects of modern Nahuatl is as follows (many of the labels refer to Mexican states):
- Western Periphery
- West coast
- Western México State
- Durango–Nayarit
- Eastern Periphery
- Huasteca
- Center
- Nuclear subarea (in and near Mexico, D.F.)
- Puebla–Tlaxcala (areas by the border between the states of Puebla and Tlaxcala)
- Xochiltepec–Huatlatlauca (south of the city of Puebla)
- Southeastern Puebla (this grouping extends over the Sierra de Zongolica located in the neighboring state of Veracruz)
- Central Guerrero (so called; actually northern Guerrero, specifically the region of the Balsas River)
- Southern Guerrero
List of Nahuatl dialects recognized by the Mexican government
This list is taken from the Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI)'s Catálogo de Lenguas Indígenas Nacionales.[14] The full document has variations on the names especially “autodenominaciones” ("self designations", the names these dialect communities use for their language), along with lists of towns where each variant is spoken.
- Náhuatl de la Sierra, noreste de Puebla
- Náhuatl del noroeste central
- Náhuatl del Istmo
- Mexicano de la Huasteca veracruzana
- Náhuatl de la Huasteca potosina
- Náhuatl de Oaxaca
- Náhuatl de la Sierra negra, sur
- Náhuatl de la Sierra negra, norte
- Náhuatl central de Veracruz
- Náhuatl de la Sierra oeste
- Náhuatl alto del norte de Puebla
- Náhuatl del Istmo bajo
- Náhuatl del centro de Puebla
- Mexicano bajo de occidente
- Mexicano del noroeste (spoken by Mexicaneros)
- Mexicano de Guerrero
- Mexicano de occidente
- Mexicano central de occidente
- Mexicano central bajo
- Mexicano de Temixco
- Mexicano de Puente de Ixtla
- Mexicano de Tetela del Volcán
- Mexicano alto de occidente (spoken by Mexicaneros)
- Mexicano del oriente
- Mexicano del oriente central
- Mexicano del centro bajo
- Mexicano del centro alto
- Mexicano del centro
- Mexicano del oriente de Puebla
- Mexicano de la Huasteca Hidalguense
List of Nahuatl dialects recognized in ISO 639-3, ordered by number of speakers
(name [ISO subgroup code] – location(s) ~approx. number of speakers)
- Eastern Huasteca [nhe] – Hidalgo, Western Veracruz, Northern Puebla ~450,000
- Western Huasteca [nhw] – San Luis Potosí, Western Hidalgo ~450,000
- Guerrero [ngu] – Guerrero ~200,000
- Orizaba [nlv] – Central Veracruz ~140,000
- Southeastern Puebla [nhs] – Southeast Puebla ~135,000
- Highland Puebla [azz] – Puebla Highlands ~125,000
- Northern Puebla [ncj] – Northern Puebla ~66,000
- Central [nhn] – Tlaxcala, Puebla ~50,000
- Isthmus-Mecayapan [nhx] – Southern Veracruz ~20,000
- Central Puebla [ncx] – Central Puebla ~18,000
- Morelos [nhm] – Morelos ~15,000
- Northern Oaxaca [nhy] – Northwestern Oaxaca, Southeastern Puebla ~10,000
- Huaxcaleca [nhq] – Puebla ~7,000
- Isthmus-Pajapan [nhp] – Southern Veracruz ~7,000
- Isthmus-Cosoleacaque [nhk] – Northwestern Coastal Chiapas, Southern Veracruz ~5,500
- Tetelcingo [nhg] – Morelos ~3,500
- Michoacán [ncl] – Michoacán ~3,000
- Santa María de la Alta [nhz] – Northwest Puebla ~3,000
- Tenango [nhi] – Northern Puebla ~2,000
- Tlamacazapa [nuz] – Morelos ~1,500
- Coatepec [naz] – Southwestern México State, Northwestern Guerrero ~1,500
- Durango [nln] – Southern Durango ~1,000
- Ometepec [nht] – Southern Guerrero, Western Oaxaca ~500
- Temascaltepec [nhv] – Southwestern México State ~300
- Tlalitzlipa [nhj] – Puebla ~100
- Pipil [ppl] – El Salvador ~500
- Tabasco [nhc] – Tabasco ~30
Geographical distributions of Nahuan languages by ISO code:[15]
| Language | ISO 639-3 code | State(s) | Municipalities and towns |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nahuatl, Morelos | nhm | Morelos and Puebla | Morelos state: Miacatlán municipality, Coatetelco; Puente de Ixtla municipality, Xoxocotla; Temixco municipality, Cuentepec; Tepoztlán municipality, Santa Catarina; Tetela del Volcán municipality, Hueyapan, Alpanocan; Puebla state: Acteopan municipality, San Marcos Acteopan and San Felipe Toctla |
| Nahuatl, Santa María la Alta | nhz | Puebla | Atenayuca, Santa María la Alta; a few northwest of Tehuacán |
| Nahuatl, Zacatlán-Ahuacatlán-Tepetzintla | nhi | Puebla | Ahuacatlán, Chachayohquila, Cuacuila, Cuacuilco, Cualtepec Ixquihuacán, San Miguel Tenango, Santa Catarina Omitlán, Tenantitla, Tepetzintla, Tetelatzingo, Tlalitzlipa, Xochitlasco, Xonotla, Yehuala, Zacatlán north of Puebla City, Zoquitla |
| Nahuatl, Coatepec | naz | México | Acapetlahuaya, Chilacachapa, Coatepec Costales, Guerrero, Los Sabinos, Machito de las Flores, Maxela, Miacacsingo, Texcalco, Tlacultlapa, Tonalapa |
| Nahuatl, Isthmus-Cosoleacaque | nhk | Veracruz | Veracruz-Llave, from Jáltipan de Morelos southeast to Rio Chiquito, north bank; other communities: Cosoleacaque, Oteapan, Hidalgotitlán, and Soconusco |
| Nahuatl, Isthmus-Mecayapan | nhx | Veracruz | Mecayapan municipality, Mecayapan and Tatahuicapan towns |
| Nahuatl, Orizaba | nlv | Veracruz, Puebla, and Oaxaca | Veracruz state: Orizaba; Puebla state: north of Lake Miguel Alemán; Oaxaca state: small area northwest of Acatlán |
| Nahuatl, Sierra Negra | nsu | Puebla | 13 towns in south |
| Nahuatl, Western Huasteca | nhw | San Luis Potosí | Tamazunchale center, Xilitla; Hidalgo state: Chapulhuacan, Lolotla, Pisaflores, portions of San Felipe Orizatlán, Tepehuacán de Guerrero, and Tlanchinol municipalities. 1,500 villages. |
| Nahuatl, Central | nhn | Tlaxcala and Puebla | San Miguel Canoa, Huejotzingo, San Andrés Cholula, San Pedro Cholula, Puebla City, Zitlaltepec, Tlaxcala City, Santa Ana Chauhtempan and Amecameca. |
| Nahuatl, Central Huasteca | nch | Hidalgo | Huejutla, Xochiatipan, Huauhtla, Atlapexco, Jaltocán, Calnali, Chalma, Platon Sanchez border area west of Cototlán and Veracruz-Llave; possibly San Luis Potosí |
| Nahuatl, Central Puebla | ncx | Puebla | Atoyatempan, Huatlathauca, and Huehuetlán near Molcaxac, south of Puebla city, Teopantlán, Tepatlaxco de Hidalgo, Tochimilco |
| Nahuatl, Eastern Durango | azd | Durango and Nayarit | Durango state: Mezquital municipality, Agua Caliente, Agua Fria, La Tinaja, and San Pedro Jicora; Nayarit state: Del Nayer municipality |
| Nahuatl, Eastern Huasteca | nhe | Hidalgo and Puebla | Francisco Z. Mena municipality; Veracruz state: interior west of Tuxpan. 1500 villages. |
| Nahuatl, Guerrero | ngu | Guerrero | Ahuacuotzingo, Alcozauca de Guerrero, Alpoyeca, Atenango del Río, Atlixtac, Ayutla de los Libres, Chiulapa de Álvarez, Comonfort, Copalillo, Cualac, Huamuxtitlán, Huitzuco de los Figueroa, Mártir de Cuilapan, Mochitlán, Olinalá, Quechultenango, Tepecoacuilco de Trujano, Tixtla de Guerrero, Tlapa de Xalpatláhuac, Xochihuehuetlán, Zapotitlan Tablas, and Zitlala municipalities, Balsas River area |
| Nahuatl, Highland Puebla | azz | Puebla | near Jopala; Veracruz state: south of Entabladero |
| Nahuatl, Huaxcaleca | nhq | Veracruz | inland area surrounding Córdoba |
| Nahuatl, Isthmus-Pajapan | nhp | Veracruz | Pajapan municipality on Gulf of Mexico, Jicacal, San Juan Volador, Santanón, and Sayultepec towns |
| Nahuatl, Michoacán | ncl | Michoacán | Maruata Pómaro on Pacific Ocean coast |
| Nahuatl, Northern Oaxaca | nhy | Oaxaca | Apixtepec, Cosolapa, El Manzano de Mazatlán, San Antonio Nanahuatipan, San Gabriel Casa Blanca, San Martín Toxpalan, Santa María Teopoxco, Teotitlán del Camino; Ignacio Zaragosa, and Tesonapa (1 of the last 2 towns in Veracruz); Puebla state: Coxcatlán |
| Nahuatl, Northern Puebla | ncj | Puebla | Naupan and Acaxochitlán. |
| Nahuatl, Ometepec | nht | Guerrero | Acatepec, Arcelia, El Carmen, Quetzalapa de Azoyú, and Rancho de Cuananchinicha; Oaxaca state: Juxtlahuaca District, Cruz Alta, and San Vicente Piñas; Putla District, Concepción Guerrero |
| Nahuatl, Southeastern Puebla | npl | Puebla | Tehuacán region: Chilac and San Sebastián Zinacatepec areas |
| Nahuatl, Tabasco | nhc | Tabasco | Comalcalco municipality, La Lagartera and Paso de Cupilco |
| Nahuatl, Temascaltepec | nhv | México | La Comunidad, Potrero de San José, San Mateo Almomoloa, and Santa Ana, southwest of Toluca |
| Nahuatl, Tetelcingo | nhg | Morelos | Tetelcingo |
| Nahuatl, Tlamacazapa | nuz | Guerrero and Morelos | Guerrero state: border area northeast of Taxco; Morelos state: west of Tequesquitengo Lake |
| Nahuatl, Western Durango | azn | Durango and Nayarit | Durango State: Mezquital municipality, Alacranes, Curachitos de Buenavista, San Agustin de Buenaventura, San Diego, Tepalcates, and Tepetates II (Berenjenas); Nayarit state: Acaponeta municipality, El Duraznito, La Laguna, Mesa de las Arpas, and Santa Cruz |
See also
References
- Eberhard, David M.; Simons, Gary F.; Fennig, Charles D., eds. (2019). "Mexico languages". Ethnologue: Languages of the World (22nd ed.). Dallas: SIL International.
Bibliography
- Campbell, Lyle (1985). The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Mouton Grammar Library, no. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-010344-1. OCLC 13433705.
- Campbell, Lyle; Ronald Langacker (1978). "Proto-Aztecan vowels: Part I". International Journal of American Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 44 (2): 85–102. doi:10.1086/465526. OCLC 1753556. S2CID 143091460.
- Canger, Una (1980). Five Studies Inspired by Náhuatl Verbs in -oa. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, Vol. XIX. Copenhagen: The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen; distributed by C.A. Reitzels Boghandel. ISBN 87-7421-254-0. OCLC 7276374.
- Canger, Una (1988). "Nahuatl dialectology: A survey and some suggestions". International Journal of American Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 54 (1): 28–72. doi:10.1086/466074. OCLC 1753556. S2CID 144210796.
- Canger, Una; Karen Dakin (1985). "An inconspicuous basic split in Nahuatl". International Journal of American Linguistics. 51 (4): 358–361. doi:10.1086/465892. S2CID 143084964.
- Canger, Una (1988). "Subgrupos de los dialectos nahuas". In J. Kathryn Josserand; Karen Dakin (eds.). Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of Thelma D. Sullivan. British Archaeological Reports (BAR). BAR International Series. Vol. 2. Oxford. pp. 473–498.
- Dakin, Karen (1974). "Dialectología náhuatl de Morelos: Un estudio preliminar". Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl. 11: 227–234.
- Dakin, Karen (1982). La evolución fonológica del Protonáhuatl (in Spanish). México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas. ISBN 968-5802-92-0. OCLC 10216962.
- Dakin, Karen (1994). "El náhuatl en el yutoazteca sureño: algunas isoglosas gramaticales y fonológicas". In Carolyn MacKay; Verónica Vázquez (eds.). Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica. Estudios sobre Lenguas Americanas, no. 1 (in Spanish). México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas. pp. 3–86. ISBN 968-36-4055-9. OCLC 34716589.
- Dakin, Karen (1983). "Proto-Aztecan vowels and Pochutec: an alternative analysis". International Journal of American Linguistics. 49 (2): 196–203. doi:10.1086/465782. S2CID 143920332.
- Dakin, Karen (1991). "Nahuatl Direct and Mediated Possession: A Historical Explanation for Irregularities". International Journal of American Linguistics. 57 (3): 298–329. doi:10.1086/ijal.57.3.3519722. JSTOR 3519722. S2CID 151441318.
- Dakin, Karen (2000). "Proto-Uto-Aztecan *p and the e-/ye- isogloss in Nahuatl dialectology". In Eugene Casad; Thomas Willett (eds.). Uto-Aztecan : structural, temporal, and geographic perspectives: papers in memory of Wick R. Miller by the Friends of Uto-Aztecan. Hermosillo, Sonora: UniSon (Universidad de Sonora, División de Humanidades y Bellas Artes).
- Dakin, Karen (2003). "Uto-Aztecan in the Linguistic Stratigraphy of Mesoamerican Prehistory". In Henning Andersen (ed.). Language contacts in prehistory: studies in stratigraphy. John Benjamins. pp. 259–288. ISBN 1588113795.
- Dakin, Karen, ed. (2001). "Estudios sobre el náhuatl". Avances y balances de lenguas yutoaztecas. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, UNAM. ISBN 970-18-6966-4.
- Sullivan, Thelma D. (1979). Dakin, Karen (ed.). Dialectología del náhuatl de los siglos XVI y XVI. Rutas de intercambio en Mesoamérica y el Norte de Mexico, XVI. Round Table. Vol. II. Saltillo, September 9–15. pp. 291–297.
- Hasler, Andrés (1996). El náhuatl de Tehuacan-Zongolica. Mexico: CIESAS.
- Kaufman, Terrence (2001). The history of the Nawa language group from the earliest times to the sixteenth century: some initial results (PDF).
- Lastra de Suárez, Yolanda (1986). Las áreas dialectales del náhuatl moderno. Serie antropológica, no. 62 (in Spanish). Ciudad Universitaria, México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas. ISBN 968-837-744-9. OCLC 19632019.
- Lastra de Suárez, Yolanda (1981). "Stress in modern Nahuatl dialects". Nahuatl Studies in Memory of Fernando Horcasitas. Texas Linguistic Forum. Vol. 18. Austin: The University of Texas, Department of Linguistics. pp. 19–128.
- Manaster Ramer, Alexis (1995). "The Search for the Sources of the Nahuatl Saltillo". Anthropological Linguistics. 37 (1): 1–15.
- Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1937). "The origin of Aztec tl". American Anthropologist. 39 (2): 265–274. doi:10.1525/aa.1937.39.2.02a00070.
- Whorf, Benjamin Lee; Frances Karttunen; Lyle Campbell (1993). "Pitch Tone and the "Saltillo" in Modern and Ancient Nahuatl". International Journal of American Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 59 (2): 165–223. doi:10.1086/466194. OCLC 1753556. S2CID 144639961.
External links
- Classical Nahuatl at SIL-MX
- Guerrero Nahuatl at SIL-MX
- Isthmus-Mecayapan Nahuatl at SIL-MX
- Morelos Nahuatl at SIL-MX
- Northern Oaxaca Nahuatl at SIL-MX
- Orizaba Nawatl at SIL-MX
- Tenango Nahuatl at SIL-MX
- Tetelcingo Nahuatl at SIL-MX
- ELAR archive of Documentation of Nahuatl Knowledge of Natural History, Material Culture, and Ecology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuan_languages
| Uto-Aztecan | |
|---|---|
| Geographic distribution | Western United States, Mexico |
| Linguistic classification | One of the world's primary language families |
| Proto-language | Proto-Uto-Aztecan |
| Subdivisions | |
| ISO 639-5 | azc |
| Glottolog | utoa1244 |
 Pre-contact distribution of Uto-Aztecan languages | |
_map_(colors_adjusted).svg) Current extent of Uto-Aztecan languages in Mexico | |
Uto-Aztecan, Uto-Aztekan /ˈjuːtoʊ.æzˈtɛkən/ or (rarely in English) Uto-Nahuatl[1] is a family of indigenous languages of the Americas, consisting of over thirty languages. Uto-Aztecan languages are found almost entirely in the Western United States and Mexico. The name of the language family was created to show that it includes both the Ute language of Utah and the Nahuan languages (also known as Aztecan) of Mexico.
The Uto-Aztecan language family is one of the largest linguistic families in the Americas in terms of number of speakers, number of languages, and geographic extension.[2] The northernmost Uto-Aztecan language is Shoshoni, which is spoken as far north as Salmon, Idaho, while the southernmost is the Pipil language of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Ethnologue gives the total number of languages in the family as 61, and the total number of speakers as 1,900,412.[3] Speakers of Nahuatl languages account for over 85% of these.
The internal classification of the family often divides it into two branches: a northern branch including all the languages of the US and a southern branch including all the languages of Mexico, although it is still being discussed whether this is best understood as a genetic classification or as a geographical one. Below this level of classification the main branches are well accepted: Numic (including languages such as Comanche and Shoshoni) and the Californian languages (formerly known as the Takic group, including Cahuilla and Luiseño) account for most of the Northern languages. Hopi and Tübatulabal are languages outside those groups. The Southern languages are divided into the Tepiman languages (including O'odham and Tepehuán), the Tarahumaran languages (including Raramuri and Guarijio), the Cahitan languages (including Yaqui and Mayo), the Coracholan languages (including Cora and Huichol), and the Nahuan languages.
The homeland of the Uto-Aztecan languages is generally considered to have been in the Southwestern United States or possibly Northwestern Mexico. An alternative theory has proposed the possibility that the language family originated in southern Mexico, within the Mesoamerican language area, but this has not been generally considered convincing.
Geographic distribution
Uto-Aztecan languages are spoken in the North American mountain ranges
and adjacent lowlands of the western United States in the states of Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, California, Nevada, and Arizona. In Mexico, they are spoken in the states of Sonora, Chihuahua, Nayarit, Durango, Zacatecas, Jalisco, Michoacán, Guerrero, San Luis Potosí, Hidalgo, Puebla, Veracruz, Morelos, Estado de México, and in Mexico City. Classical Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs, and its modern relatives are part of the Uto-Aztecan family. The Pipil language, an offshoot of Nahuatl, spread to Central America by a wave of migration from Mexico, and formerly had many speakers there. Now it has gone extinct in Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and it is nearly extinct in western El Salvador, all areas dominated by use of Spanish.
Classification
History of classification
Uto-Aztecan has been accepted by linguists as a language family since the early 1900s, and six subgroups are generally accepted as valid: Numic, Takic, Pimic, Taracahitic, Corachol, and Aztecan. That leaves two ungrouped languages: Tübatulabal and Hopi (sometimes termed "isolates within the family"). Some recent studies have begun to question the unity of Taracahitic and Takic and computer-assisted statistical studies have begun to question some of the long-held assumptions and consensuses. As to higher-level groupings, disagreement has persisted since the 19th century. Presently scholars also disagree as to where to draw language boundaries within the dialect continua.
The similarities among the Uto-Aztecan languages were noted as early as 1859 by J. C. E. Buschmann, but he failed to recognize the genetic affiliation between the Aztecan branch and the rest. He ascribed the similarities between the two groups to diffusion. Daniel Garrison Brinton added the Aztecan languages to the family in 1891 and coined the term Uto-Aztecan. John Wesley Powell, however, rejected the claim in his own classification of North American indigenous languages (also published in 1891). Powell recognized two language families: "Shoshonean" (encompassing Takic, Numic, Hopi, and Tübatulabal) and "Sonoran" (encompassing Pimic, Taracahitan, and Corachol). In the early 1900s Alfred L. Kroeber filled in the picture of the Shoshonean group,[4] while Edward Sapir proved the unity among Aztecan, "Sonoran", and "Shoshonean".[5][6][7] Sapir's applications of the comparative method to unwritten Native American languages are regarded as groundbreaking.[citation needed] Voegelin, Voegelin & Hale (1962) argued for a three-way division of Shoshonean, Sonoran and Aztecan, following Powell.[8]
As of about 2011, there is still debate about whether to accept the proposed basic split between "Northern Uto-Aztecan" and "Southern Uto-Aztecan" languages.[2] Northern Uto-Aztecan corresponds to Powell's "Shoshonean", and the latter is all the rest: Powell's "Sonoran" plus Aztecan. Northern Uto-Aztecan was proposed as a genetic grouping by Jeffrey Heath in Heath (1978) based on morphological evidence, and Alexis Manaster Ramer in Manaster Ramer (1992) adduced phonological evidence in the form of a sound law. Terrence Kaufman in Kaufman (1981) accepted the basic division into Northern and Southern branches as valid. Other scholars have rejected the genealogical unity of either both nodes or the Northern node alone.[9][10][11][12] Wick R. Miller's argument was statistical, arguing that Northern Uto-Aztecan languages displayed too few cognates to be considered a unit. On the other hands he found the number of cognates among Southern Uto-Aztecan languages to suggest a genetic relation.[11] This position was supported by subsequent lexicostatistic analyses by Cortina-Borja & Valiñas-Coalla (1989) and Cortina-Borja, Stuart-Smith & Valiñas-Coalla (2002). Reviewing the debate, Haugen (2008) considers the evidence in favor of the genetic unity of Northern Uto-Aztecan to be convincing, but remains agnostic on the validity of Southern Uto-Aztecan as a genetic grouping. Hill (2011) also considered the North/South split to be valid based on phonological evidence, confirming both groupings. Merrill (2013) adduced further evidence for the unity of Southern Uto-Aztecan as a valid grouping.
Hill (2011) also rejected the validity of the Takic grouping decomposing it into a Californian areal grouping together with Tubatulabal.
Some classifications have posited a genetic relation between Corachol and Nahuan (e.g. Merrill (2013)). Kaufman recognizes similarities between Corachol and Aztecan, but explains them by diffusion instead of genetic evolution.[13] Most scholars view the breakup of Proto-Uto-Aztecan as a case of the gradual disintegration of a dialect continuum.[14]
Present scheme
Below is a representation of the internal classification of the language family based on Shaul (2014). The classification reflects the decision to split up the previous Taracahitic and Takic groups, that are no longer considered to be valid genetic units. Whether the division between Northern and Southern languages is best understood as geographical or phylogenetic is under discussion. The table contains demographic information about number of speakers and their locations based on data from The Ethnologue. The table also contains links to a selected bibliography of grammars, dictionaries on many of the individual languages.(† = extinct)
| Genealogical classification of Uto-Aztecan languages | ||||||
| Family | Groups | Languages | Where spoken and approximate number of speakers | Works | ||
| Uto-Aztecan languages | Northern Uto-Aztecan (possibly an areal grouping) |
Numic | Western Numic | Paviotso, Bannock, Northern Paiute | 700 speakers in California, Oregon, Idaho and Nevada | Nichols (1973) |
| Mono | About 40 speakers in California | Lamb (1958) | ||||
| Central Numic | Shoshoni, Goshiute | 1000 fluent speakers and 1000 learners in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Idaho | McLaughlin (2012) | |||
| Comanche | 100 speakers in Oklahoma | Robinson & Armagost (1990) | ||||
| Timbisha (Panamint) | 20 speakers in California and Nevada | Dayley (1989) | ||||
| Southern Numic | Colorado River dialect chain: Ute, Southern Paiute, Chemehuevi | 920 speakers of all dialects, in Colorado, Nevada, California, Utah, Arizona | Givón (2011), Press (1979), Sapir (1992) | |||
| Kawaiisu | 5 speakers in California | Zigmond, Booth & Munro (1991) | ||||
| Californian language area |
Serran | Serrano, Kitanemuk (†) | No native speakers | Hill (1967) | ||
| Cupan | Cahuilla, Cupeño | 35 speakers of Cahuilla, no native speakers of Cupeño | Seiler (1977), Hill (2005) | |||
|
|
Luiseño-Juaneño | 5 speakers in Southern California | Kroeber & Grace (1960) | |||
|
|
Tongva (Gabrielino-Fernandeño) | Last native speakers died in early 1900s, in 21st century undergoing revival efforts, Southern California | Munro & Gabrielino/Tongva Language Committee (2008) | |||
| Hopi |
|
Hopi | 6,800 speakers in northeastern Arizona | Hopi Dictionary Project (1998), Jeanne (1978) | ||
| Tübatulabal |
|
Tübatulabal | Currently spoken by growing community of speakers [15] | Voegelin (1935), Voegelin (1958) | ||
| Southern Uto-Aztecan (possibly an areal grouping) |
Tepiman | Pimic | O'odham (Pima-Papago) | 14,000 speakers in southern Arizona, US and northern Sonora, Mexico | Zepeda (1983) | |
| Pima Bajo (O'ob No'ok) | 650 speakers in Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico | Estrada-Fernández (1998) | ||||
| Tepehuan | Northern Tepehuan | 6,200 speakers in Chihuahua, Mexico | Bascom (1982) | |||
| Southern Tepehuan | 10,600 speakers in Southeastern Durango | Willett (1991) | ||||
| Tepecano (†) | Extinct since approx. 1985, spoken in Northern Jalisco | Mason (1916) | ||||
| Tarahumaran |
|
Tarahumara (several varieties) | 45,500 speakers of all varieties, all spoken in Chihuahua | Caballero (2008) | ||
|
|
Upriver Guarijio, Downriver Guarijio | 2,840 speakers in Chihuahua and Sonora | Miller (1996) | |||
|
|
Tubar (†) | Spoken in Sinaloa and Sonora | Lionnet (1978) | |||
| Cahita |
|
Yaqui (Hiaki) | 11,800 in Sonora and Arizona | Dedrick & Casad (1999) | ||
|
|
Mayo | 33,000 in Sinaloa and Sonora | Freeze (1989) | |||
| Opatan |
|
Ópata (†) | Extinct since approx. 1930. Spoken in Sonora. | Shaul (2001) | ||
|
|
Eudeve (†) | Spoken in Sonora, but extinct since 1940 | Lionnet (1986) | |||
| Corachol |
|
Cora | 13,600 speakers in northern Nayarit | Casad (1984) | ||
|
|
Huichol | 17,800 speakers in Nayarit, Jalisco, and western Zacatecas. | Iturrioz Leza & Ramírez de la Cruz (2001) | |||
| Aztecan (Nahuan) |
|
Pochutec (†) | Extinct since 1970s, spoken on the coast of Oaxaca | Boas (1917) | ||
| Core Nahuan | Pipil | 20-40 speakers in El Salvador | Campbell (1985) | |||
|
|
Nahuatl | 1,500,000 speakers in Central Mexico | Launey (1986), Langacker (1979) | |||
In addition to the above languages for which linguistic evidence exists, it is suspected that among dozens of now extinct, undocumented or poorly known languages of northern Mexico, many were Uto-Aztecan.[16]
Extinct languages
A large number of languages known only from brief mentions are thought to have been Uto-Aztecan languages that became extinct before being documented.[17]
Proposed external relations
An "Aztec–Tanoan" macrofamily that unites the Uto-Aztecan languages with the Tanoan languages of the southwestern United States was first proposed by Edward Sapir in the early 20th century, and later supported with potential lexical evidence by other scholars. This proposal has received much criticism about the validity of the proposed cognate sets and has been largely abandoned by the end of the last century as unproven.[18]
Proto-Uto-Aztecan
References
- Campbell, Lyle. (1997). American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 269–273.
Sources
- Brown, Cecil H. (2010). "Lack of linguistic support for Proto-Uto-Aztecan at 8900 BP (letter)". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (15): E34, author reply E35–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914859107. PMC 2841887. PMID 20231478.
- Caballero, G. (2011). "Behind the Mexican Mountains: Recent Developments and New Directions in Research on Uto‐Aztecan Languages". Language and Linguistics Compass. 5 (7): 485–504. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x.
- Campbell, Lyle (1997). American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press.
- Campbell, Lyle (2003). "What drives linguistic diversification and language spread?". In Bellwood, Peter; Renfrew, Colin (eds.). Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. Cambridge(U.K.): McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. pp. 49–63.
- Campbell, Lyle; Poser, William J. (2008). Language classification, history and method. Cambridge University Press.
- Cortina-Borja, M; Valiñas-Coalla, L (1989). "Some remarks on Uto-Aztecan Classification". International Journal of American Linguistics. 55 (2): 214–239. doi:10.1086/466114. S2CID 145309871.
- Cortina-Borja, M.; Stuart-Smith, J.; Valiñas-Coalla, L. (2002). "Multivariate classification methods for lexical and phonological dissimilarities and their application to the Uto-Aztecan family". Journal of Quantitative Linguistics. 9 (2): 97–124. doi:10.1076/jqul.9.2.97.8485. S2CID 205390627.
- Dakin, Karen (1996). "Long vowels and morpheme boundaries in Nahuatl and Uto-Aztecan: comments on historical developments" (PDF). Amerindia. 21.
- Fowler, Catherine S. (1983). "Some lexical clues to Uto-Aztecan prehistory". International Journal of American Linguistics. 49 (3): 224–257. doi:10.1086/465789. S2CID 143511895.
- Goddard, Ives (1996). "Introduction". In Goddard, Ives (ed.). Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 17. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. pp. 1–16.
- Haugen, J. D. (2008). Morphology at the interfaces: reduplication and noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. Vol. 117. John Benjamins Publishing.
- Heath, J. (1978). "Uto-Aztecan* na-class verbs". International Journal of American Linguistics. 44 (3): 211–222. doi:10.1086/465546. S2CID 16989534.
- Hill, Jane H. (December 2001). "Proto-Uto-Aztecan". American Anthropologist. New Series. 103 (4): 913–934. doi:10.1525/aa.2001.103.4.913. JSTOR 684121.
- Hill, Jane H. (2010). "New evidence for a Mesoamerican homeland for Proto-Uto-Aztecan". PNAS. 107 (11): E33, author reply E35–6. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E..33H. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914473107. PMC 2841890. PMID 20231477.
- Hill, J. H. (2011). "Subgrouping in Uto-Aztecan". Language Dynamics and Change. 1 (2): 241–278. doi:10.1163/221058212x643978.
- Iannucci, David (1972). Numic historical phonology. Cornell University PhD dissertation.
- Kaufman, Terrence (2001). Nawa linguistic prehistory. Mesoamerican Language Documentation Project.
- Kaufman, Terrence (1981). Lyle Campbell (ed.). Comparative Uto-Aztecan Phonology. Unpublished manuscript.
- Kemp; González-Oliver; Malhi; Monroe; Schroeder; McDonough; Rhett; Resendéz; Peñalosa-Espinoza; Buentello-Malo; Gorodetsky; Smith (2010). "Evaluating the farming/language dispersal hypothesis with genetic variation exhibited by populations in the Southwest and Mesoamerica". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (15): 6759–6764. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107.6759K. doi:10.1073/pnas.0905753107. PMC 2872417. PMID 20351276.
- Kroeber, Alfred Louis (1907). Shoshonean dialects of California. The University Press. Retrieved 24 August 2012.
- Kroeber, Alfred Louis (1934). Uto-Aztecan Languages of Mexico. Vol. 8. University of California Press.
- Langacker, Ronald W. (1970). "The Vowels of Proto Uto-Aztecan". International Journal of American Linguistics. 36 (3): 169–180. doi:10.1086/465108. S2CID 144762214.
- Langacker, R. W. (1977). An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar. Summer Institute of Linguistics.
- Langacker, R. W. (1976). Non-distinct arguments in Uto-Aztecan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Manaster Ramer, Alexis (1992). "A Northern Uto-Aztecan Sound Law: *-c- → -y-¹". International Journal of American Linguistics. 58 (3): 251–268. doi:10.1086/ijal.58.3.3519784. JSTOR 3519784. S2CID 148412173.
- Merrill, William L.; Hard, Robert J.; Mabry, Jonathan B.; Fritz; Adams; Roney; MacWilliams (2010). "Reply to Hill and Brown: Maize and Uto-Aztecan cultural history". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (11): E35–E36. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E..35M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1000923107. PMC 2841871.
- Merrill, W (2013). "The genetic unity of southern Uto-Aztecan". Language Dynamics and Change. 3: 68–104. doi:10.1163/22105832-13030102.
- Merrill, William L. (2012). "The Historical Linguistics of Uto-Aztecan Agriculture". Anthropological Linguistics. 54 (3): 203–260. doi:10.1353/anl.2012.0017. S2CID 144089923.
- Miller, Wick R. (1986). "Numic Languages". In Warren L. d’Azevedo (ed.). Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. pp. 98–106.
- Miller, Wick R. (1983a). "A note on extinct languages of northwest Mexico of supposed Uto-Aztecan affiliation". International Journal of American Linguistics. 49 (3): 328–333. doi:10.1086/465793. S2CID 144510097.
- Miller, Wick R. (1983). "Uto-Aztecan languages". In Ortiz, Alfonso (ed.). Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 10. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. pp. 113–124.
- Miller, Wick R. (1984). "The classification of the Uto-Aztecan languages based on lexical evidence". International Journal of American Linguistics. 50 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1086/465813. S2CID 144398421.
- Mithun, Marianne (1999). The languages of Native America. Cambridge University Press.
- Sapir, E. (1913). "Southern Paiute and Nahuatl, a study in Uto-Aztekan". Journal de la Société des Américanistes. 10 (2): 379–425. doi:10.3406/jsa.1913.2866.
- Shaul, David L. (2014). A Prehistory of Western North America: The Impact of Uto-Aztecan Languages. University of New Mexico Press.
- Shaul, David L.; Hill, Jane H. (1998). "Tepimans, Yumans, and other Hohokam". American Antiquity. 63 (3): 375–396. doi:10.2307/2694626. JSTOR 2694626. S2CID 162215129.
- Steele, Susan (1979). "Uto-Aztecan: An assessment for historical and comparative linguistics". In Campbell, Lyle; Mithun, Marianne (eds.). The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 444–544.
- Voegelin, C. F.; Voegelin, F.; Hale, K. (1962). Typological and Comparative Grammar of Uto-Aztecan: Phonology. Memoirs of the International Journal of American Linguistics. Vol. 17. Waverly Press.
- Whorf, B. L. (1935). "The Comparative Linguistics of Uto-Aztecan". American Anthropologist. 37 (4): 600–608. doi:10.1525/aa.1935.37.4.02a00050.
Individual languages
- Boas, Franz (1917). "El dialecto mexicano de Pochutla, Oaxaca". International Journal of American Linguistics (in Spanish). 1 (1): 9–44. doi:10.1086/463709. OCLC 56221629. S2CID 145443094.
- Hopi Dictionary Project (1998). Hopi Dictionary: Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi–English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect With an English–Hopi Finder List and a Sketch of Hopi Grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
- Campbell, Lyle (1985). The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Mouton Grammar Library, no. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-010344-1. OCLC 13433705. Archived from the original on 2014-06-06. Retrieved 2014-06-06.
- Dayley, Jon P. (1989). "Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone Grammar". University of California Publications in Linguistics. 115.
- Givón, Talmy (2011). Ute Reference Grammar. Culture and Language Use Volume 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Jeanne, LaVerne Masayesva (1978). Aspects of Hopi grammar. MIT, dissertation.
- Voegelin, Charles F. (1935). "Tübatulabal Grammar". University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. 34: 55–190.
- Voegelin, Charles F. (1958). "Working Dictionary of Tübatulabal". International Journal of American Linguistics. 24 (3): 221–228. doi:10.1086/464459. S2CID 145758965.
- Robinson, Lila Wistrand; Armagost, James (1990). Comanche dictionary and grammar. publications in linguistics (No. 92). Dallas, Texas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.
- Lamb, Sydney M (1958). A Grammar of Mono (PDF). PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
- Zigmond, Maurice L.; Booth, Curtis G.; Munro, Pamela (1991). Pamela Munro (ed.). Kawaiisu, A Grammar and Dictionary with Texts. University of California Publications in Linguistics. Vol. 119. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
- Nichols, Michael (1973). Northern Paiute historical grammar. University of California, Berkeley PhD dissertation.
- McLaughlin, John E. (2012). Shoshoni Grammar. Languages of the World/Meterials 488. Muenchen: LINCOM Europa.
- Press, Margaret L. (1979). Chemehuevi, A Grammar and Lexicon. University of California Publications in Linguistics. Vol. 92. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
- Sapir, Edward (1992) [1930]. "Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean Language". In William Bright (ed.). The Collected Works of Edward Sapir, X, Southern Paiute and Ute Linguistics and Ethnography. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.
- Seiler, Hans-Jakob (1977). Cahuilla Grammar. Banning, California: Malki Museum Press.
- Hill, Kenneth C. (1967). A Grammar of the Serrano Language. University of California, Los Angeles, PhD dissertation.
- Hill, Jane H. (2005). A Grammar of Cupeño. University of California Publications in Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Caballero, Gabriela (2008). Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) Phonology and Morphology (PDF) (PhD Dissertation). University of California at Berkeley.
- Thornes, Tim (2003). A Northern Paiute Grammar with Texts. PhD Dissertation: University of Oregon at Eugene.
- Kroeber, Alfred L.; Grace, George William (1960). The Sparkman Grammar of Luiseño. University of California Publications in Linguistics 16. Berkeley: The University of California Press.
- Zepeda, Ofelia (1983). A Tohono O'odham Grammar. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press.
- Willett, T. (1991). A reference grammar of southeastern Tepehuan (PDF). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
- Miller, Wick R. (1996). La lengua guarijio: gramatica, vocabulario y textos. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropologicas, UNAM.
- Bascom, Burton W. (1982). "Northern Tepehuan". In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.). Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar, Volume 3, Uto-Aztecan Grammatical Sketches. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. pp. 267–393.
- Lionnet, Andrés (1978). El idioma tubar y los tubares. Segun documentos ineditos de C. S. Lumholtz y C. V. Hartman. Mexico, D. F: Universidad Iberoamericana.
- Casad, Eugene H. (1984). "Cora". In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.). Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar 4: Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 56. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. pp. 153–149.
- Dedrick, John; Casad, Eugene H. (1999). Sonora Yaqui Language Structures. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. ISBN 9780816519811.
- Freeze, Ray A. (1989). Mayo de Los Capomos, Sinaloa. Archivo de Lenguas Indígenas del Estado de Oaxaca, 14. 14. 166. México, D.F.: Instituto de Investigación e Integración Social del Estado de Oaxaca.
- Lionnet, Andrés (1986). Un idioma extinto de sonora: El eudeve. México: UNAM. ISBN 978-968-837-915-8.
- Estrada-Fernández, Zarina (1998). Pima bajo de Yepachi, Chihuahua. Archivo de Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico. Colegio de México.
- Munro, Pamela; Gabrielino/Tongva Language Committee (2008). Yaara' Shiraaw'ax 'Eyooshiraaw'a. Now You're Speaking Our Language: Gabrielino/Tongva/Fernandeño. Lulu.com.[self-published source?]
- Launey, Michel (1986). Categories et operations dans la grammaire Nahuatl. Ph. D. dissertation, Paris IV.
- Langacker, Ronald W., ed. (1979). Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar 2: Modern Aztec Grammatical Sketches. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics, 56. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. ISBN 978-0-88312-072-9.
- Mason, J. Alden (1916). "Tepecano, A Piman language of western Mexico". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 25 (1): 309–416. Bibcode:1916NYASA..25..309M. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1916.tb55171.x. hdl:2027/uc1.c077921598. S2CID 86778121.
- Shaul, D. L. (2001). The Opatan Languages, Plus Jova. Festschrift. INAH.
- Iturrioz Leza, José Luis; Ramírez de la Cruz, Julio (2001). Gramática Didáctica del Huichol: Vol. I. Estructura Fonológica y Sistema de Escritura. Departamento de Estudios en Lenguas Indígenas–Universidad de Guadalajara – Secretaria de Educación Pública.
External links
- Uto-Aztecan.org, a website devoted to the comparative study of the Uto-Aztecan language family
- Swadesh vocabulary lists for Uto-Aztecan languages (from Wiktionary's Swadesh-list appendix)
- Mesoamerican languages
- Uto-Aztecan languages
- Language families
- Indigenous languages of California
- Indigenous languages of Mexico
- Indigenous languages of the North American Southwest
- Indigenous languages of the North American Great Basin
- Indigenous languages of the Southwestern United States
- Agglutinative languages
- Indigenous languages of North America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uto-Aztecan_languages
No comments:
Post a Comment